Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
Yep. Ann, this was a marvelous statement on your part. From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 10:42 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits Awesome dear Ann, I have to say I enjoyed Judy's analysis too - it was really beautiful, like you say clear intellectual poetry - how she picked King Baby Barry apart. On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 9:35 PM, awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Logic and analysis can be beautiful, crystalline and pure. When it is thus, there is a kind of gorgeousness manifest, a cleansing akin to what happens to the air after a thunderstorm accompanied by a downpour. It is what is often missing when communication is muddied with circuitous argument, shoot-from-the-hip assertion and downright ill-intentioned accusation. When I read this just now it struck me that Judy was cleaning something up, setting things to rights. That is what clear thinking can do. It is not motivated by self-serving subjectivity but by the need, the desire to get it right, to make it clean. Don't mind me, maybe it is just the chocolate sunday (that I am eating at this moment) talking. But it sure feels true right now. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: snip Taking you at your word in this rant Robin's post to raunchy was in no way a rant. and in others, about your willingness to see yourself from points of view other than your own, I'm curious as to how you'll react to a few unrequested observations: The problem with these unrequested observations is that they don't appear to have much of anything to do with the post Barry claims generated them, or with Robin's FFL posts generally (which Barry doesn't read). Robin has dealt with the conceptual errors in Barry's post; let's do a little fisking of Barry's illogic and factual errors for the record: 1. As many have pointed out, how does this letter to Raunchy *not* fit into the category of trolling for TMers in hopes of still attracting adoration, if not actual followers? Who else would CARE about what you felt and continue to feel for Maharishi? This is just a silly failure of logic, given the membership of this forum. It would mean the only people Robin could write to about his feelings for Maharishi without its fitting the category of trolling for TMers would be Emily and Ravi. Plus which, of course, everybody can read all the posts anyway. How about Marek and raunchy, who both expressed very positive feelings for Maharishi--were they trolling for TMers? Lots of people have done that here. Chop-logic. 2. Also as many have pointed out, for all your claims of challenging past assumptions, there seems to be one that you have never challenged, and continue to assert (again, only to TMers, Wrong. He's asserted it to Emily, to Ravi, and to many of the former TMers here. But then Barry doesn't read Robin's posts, so how would he know this? the only group for which this claim would have any caveat or meaning) -- that you were once in Unity Consciousness as defined by MMY. Have you *ever* entertained the notion that you were just experiencing a bout of psychosis that you *interpreted* as a state that would be pleasing to the guy you had a man-crush on (Maharishi)? For ten years? And has Barry ever read Robin's account of the dawning of his Unity Consciousness at Arosa? 3. Also, have you ever considered the possibility that all of the flashy experiences you attribute to having in Maharishi's presence are simply the result *OF* having a rather severe man-crush on him? This is a question that anyone reading that you have spent the last 25 years of your life living with a guy who seems to have a similar man-crush on you might ask. Just sayin'... It would be very difficult to find anything in what Robin wrote to indicate that his friend has a man-crush on him. And even if that were the case, what would that have to do with the speculation that Robin's flashy experiences in MMY's presence were generated by a man-crush? That's not even bad logic; it's a complete non sequitur. 4. Have you ever pondered the *extraordinary* ramifications of stating that my perception of a matter concerning myself was incorrect happened for the *first* time in your life at a rather advanced age? Ooopsie, that isn't quite what Robin wrote: The real turning point, however, raunchy, came when my best friend (although he was not at this time) demonstrated to me that my perception of a matter concerning myself was incorrect, and that his perception of me was the objective one. I had never experienced anything like this in my life: someone proving they knew me better than I knew myself
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- authfriend authfriend@... wrote: His philosophy is his own, not borrowed, first of all, as Barry would know if he'd been reading Robin's posts. Second, given that he has concluded Maharishi was fundamentally a fraud-- Objectively, I have have been forced to conclude that Maharishi did not possess either the personal or even impersonal integrity to justify what he claimed to be and what he claimed as his purpose in this life. --how would this butter up TMers? Could it be that Robin suffers from a disconnect between his emotional relationship with Maharishi and his intellectual relationship with Maharishi? If Maharishi is a fraud and he still loves this fraud and has fond memories of this fraud? That means Robin is in the same boat as Barry who has fond memories of this 'Cheater cunt Rama' and brags over and over again about how much he benefited from him. Think about it authbabe. Maybe you too have this disconnect. TM critics, maybe. It's always puzzled me that the most vocal TM critics on this forum are also Robin's most vocal critics. You'd think they'd be eager to make common cause with him. 6. Have you ever considered the possibility that you *projected* onto him all of the experiences you claim came *from* Maharishi, and that one of the reasons you did this is just to avoid dealing with the possibility that you had an enormous man-crush on him? You admit that the love you felt for him was the highest love you'd ever experienced, but don't seem to deal with the ramifications of that. What's up with that? How can one suggest he has avoided dealing with the possibility that he had an enormous man-crush on Maharishi when he's stated explicitly over and over how much he loved him?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@... wrote: --- authfriend authfriend@ wrote: His philosophy is his own, not borrowed, first of all, as Barry would know if he'd been reading Robin's posts. Second, given that he has concluded Maharishi was fundamentally a fraud-- Objectively, I have have been forced to conclude that Maharishi did not possess either the personal or even impersonal integrity to justify what he claimed to be and what he claimed as his purpose in this life. --how would this butter up TMers? Could it be that Robin suffers from a disconnect between his emotional relationship with Maharishi and his intellectual relationship with Maharishi? If Maharishi is a fraud and he still loves this fraud and has fond memories of this fraud? That means Robin is in the same boat as Barry who has fond memories of this 'Cheater cunt Rama' and brags over and over again about how much he benefited from him. Think about it authbabe. Interesting way to address her, I don't think I've seen this one yet. Maybe you too have this disconnect. I think Judy mostly states the facts. Her disconnect(s), foibles and personal hangups don't really seem to be at the forefront of what she writes. Often she points out mistakes, factual errors, timeline faults. Frequently the recipient of these corrections doesn't like it and accuses her of this and that. But if you really look she doesn't seem to have any personal agendas or real vendettas going on (although some are certainly the target of her unwavering attention). In some ways I see her as the conscience we should all possess but, for various reasons at times, don't. Of course Barry and Curtis would disagree mightily with this assessment. TM critics, maybe. It's always puzzled me that the most vocal TM critics on this forum are also Robin's most vocal critics. You'd think they'd be eager to make common cause with him. 6. Have you ever considered the possibility that you *projected* onto him all of the experiences you claim came *from* Maharishi, and that one of the reasons you did this is just to avoid dealing with the possibility that you had an enormous man-crush on him? You admit that the love you felt for him was the highest love you'd ever experienced, but don't seem to deal with the ramifications of that. What's up with that? How can one suggest he has avoided dealing with the possibility that he had an enormous man-crush on Maharishi when he's stated explicitly over and over how much he loved him?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@... wrote: --- authfriend authfriend@ wrote: His philosophy is his own, not borrowed, first of all, as Barry would know if he'd been reading Robin's posts. Second, given that he has concluded Maharishi was fundamentally a fraud-- Objectively, I have have been forced to conclude that Maharishi did not possess either the personal or even impersonal integrity to justify what he claimed to be and what he claimed as his purpose in this life. --how would this butter up TMers? Could it be that Robin suffers from a disconnect between his emotional relationship with Maharishi and his intellectual relationship with Maharishi? If Maharishi is a fraud and he still loves this fraud and has fond memories of this fraud? That means Robin is in the same boat as Barry who has fond memories of this 'Cheater cunt Rama' and brags over and over again about how much he benefited from him. Think about it authbabe. Maybe you too have this disconnect. ROBIN: Jason, you are a sharp fellow--I think we all know that. But as sensitive and sophisticated as your reflections are--and your posts always seem to achieve this standard--there is one point that you seemed to have overlooked. And I think it is an important one. Jason, you don't consider how, when you interpret and/or judge the point of view of another person, you are, in that very act, producing the evidence of your own point of view. Therefore, when arriving at some conclusion about another person, and expressing that conclusion, you realize you place yourself in the very same position that the person you are judging has placed himself or herself in what they have posted. It is obvious that you are entirely oblivious to this truth, a truth which would make you realize something of fundamental importance: If you are determined to evaluate the validity of someone's point of view--as you are doing here (to three separate persons), you realize that YOUR OWN POINT OF VIEW BECOMES SUBJECT IN THAT VERY ACT TO BEING EVALUATED. Even if no reader consciously realizes this is what is happening; it still is happening. You subject your own point of view to scrutiny and evaluation in the very act of having rendered a judgment about the validity of another person's point of view. Now, the proof that this does not occur to you is in what you say here. Whatever was going on in my post to raunchy, then in authfriend's commentary on that post--in response to Barry's criticism of that post--your own remarks here are intrinsically superficial, even frivolous. How so? Jason, the point of view you reveal in order to take the position you have in this post demonstrates that you have never subjected that point of view to any kind of assessment which, in principle, mimics what you are doing here in forming a psychological hypothesis about Robin, Authfriend, and Barry. You have made it inevitable that any discerning FFL reader will, even subconsciously, compare the point of view which you are analyzing and explaining causally, with the point of view implicitly which you are revealing in making your hypothesis. And guess what, Jason? You are a singularly thoughtless and non-objective actor in this circumstance--because there is no evidence in anything you say here that you are aware that YOU ARE EXPOSING YOURSELF AND YOUR POINT OF VIEW TO A JUDGMENT. If you are going to make a definitive judgment about someone, that judgment both in the way it is articulated and in its very substance, must contain more intelligence and meaning and reality than the point of view which you would seek to subject to an unfavourable judgment. Your thesis here does't do this. Now it might be possible for the idea behind your thesis to acquire some form of expression which would not bring attention back onto the person who is making it; but in your case, Jason, the absence of self-consciousness with respect to what you were doing in writing this post becomes obvious to the reader's consciousness. THIS GUY DOESN'T EXERCISE ANY SELF-REFLECTION WHEN HE ATTEMPTS TO SAY SOMETHING CRITICAL ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE'S POINT OF VIEW. Now just think about it for awhile, Jason: your idea might have some potential merit if when you uttered it you realized you were forcing your audience to compare the depth and seriousness of what you have proposed (as an explanation for the feelings expressed in a post concerning a particular person) with the posts (and commentary) you are subjecting to your analysis. What I wrote to raunchy, what she wrote to me, what authfriend then wrote in response to Barry's attack on my post to raunchy: each of these posts appear to make your hypothesis--IN HOW IT IS EXPRESSED--seem inadequate, shallow, and somehow trivial. Do you get it, Jason? Now in your reaction *to this post* you must, if you have anything to say, realize your post has to
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Awesome dear Ann, I have to say I enjoyed Judy's analysis too - it was really beautiful, like you say clear intellectual poetry - how she picked King Baby Barry apart. Now, now Ravi, just appreciate Judy's post without going for the gratuitous satisfaction of imagining Barry squirming. We know he doesn't read these things and has anaesthetized himself against any discernible reaction (if you don't count his revenge posts). But thanks for the acknowledgment. Who should we invite to our next little shindig by the way? [ihover-img] http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A2KJkexa.oNQQRwACGuJzbk\ F;_ylu=X3oDMTBlMTQ4cGxyBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1n?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.sea\ rch.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dpeople%2Bdancing%26_adv_prop%3Dima\ ge%26va%3Dpeople%2Bdancing%26fr%3Dmoz35%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D38w=1024\ h=777imgurl=www.freevector.com%2Fsite_media%2Fpreview_images%2FFreeVec\ tor-Dancing-People-Vector.jpgrurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freevector.com%2Fdan\ cing-people-vector%2Fsize=170.6+KBname=Dancing+People+Vectorp=people+\ dancingoid=61b16a76befd140ca4df4b10bdc3bfc3fr2=fr=moz35tt=Dancing%2B\ People%2BVectorb=31ni=96no=38ts=tab=organicsigr=11gg1b7qvsigb=13q\ lpbnnqsigi=12h98v6p9.crumb=AnDOlGPTqS6 On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 9:35 PM, awoelflebater no_reply@yahoogroups.comwrote: ** Logic and analysis can be beautiful, crystalline and pure. When it is thus, there is a kind of gorgeousness manifest, a cleansing akin to what happens to the air after a thunderstorm accompanied by a downpour. It is what is often missing when communication is muddied with circuitous argument, shoot-from-the-hip assertion and downright ill-intentioned accusation. When I read this just now it struck me that Judy was cleaning something up, setting things to rights. That is what clear thinking can do. It is not motivated by self-serving subjectivity but by the need, the desire to get it right, to make it clean. Don't mind me, maybe it is just the chocolate sunday (that I am eating at this moment) talking. But it sure feels true right now. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: snip Taking you at your word in this rant Robin's post to raunchy was in no way a rant. and in others, about your willingness to see yourself from points of view other than your own, I'm curious as to how you'll react to a few unrequested observations: The problem with these unrequested observations is that they don't appear to have much of anything to do with the post Barry claims generated them, or with Robin's FFL posts generally (which Barry doesn't read). Robin has dealt with the conceptual errors in Barry's post; let's do a little fisking of Barry's illogic and factual errors for the record: 1. As many have pointed out, how does this letter to Raunchy *not* fit into the category of trolling for TMers in hopes of still attracting adoration, if not actual followers? Who else would CARE about what you felt and continue to feel for Maharishi? This is just a silly failure of logic, given the membership of this forum. It would mean the only people Robin could write to about his feelings for Maharishi without its fitting the category of trolling for TMers would be Emily and Ravi. Plus which, of course, everybody can read all the posts anyway. How about Marek and raunchy, who both expressed very positive feelings for Maharishi--were they trolling for TMers? Lots of people have done that here. Chop-logic. 2. Also as many have pointed out, for all your claims of challenging past assumptions, there seems to be one that you have never challenged, and continue to assert (again, only to TMers, Wrong. He's asserted it to Emily, to Ravi, and to many of the former TMers here. But then Barry doesn't read Robin's posts, so how would he know this? the only group for which this claim would have any caveat or meaning) -- that you were once in Unity Consciousness as defined by MMY. Have you *ever* entertained the notion that you were just experiencing a bout of psychosis that you *interpreted* as a state that would be pleasing to the guy you had a man-crush on (Maharishi)? For ten years? And has Barry ever read Robin's account of the dawning of his Unity Consciousness at Arosa? 3. Also, have you ever considered the possibility that all of the flashy experiences you attribute to having in Maharishi's presence are simply the result *OF* having a rather severe man-crush on him? This is a question that anyone reading that you have spent the last 25 years of your life living with a guy who seems to have a similar man-crush on you might ask. Just
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@... wrote: --- authfriend authfriend@ wrote: His philosophy is his own, not borrowed, first of all, as Barry would know if he'd been reading Robin's posts. Second, given that he has concluded Maharishi was fundamentally a fraud-- Objectively, I have have been forced to conclude that Maharishi did not possess either the personal or even impersonal integrity to justify what he claimed to be and what he claimed as his purpose in this life. --how would this butter up TMers? Could it be that Robin suffers from a disconnect between his emotional relationship with Maharishi and his intellectual relationship with Maharishi? If Maharishi is a fraud and he still loves this fraud and has fond memories of this fraud? That means Robin is in the same boat as Barry who has fond memories of this 'Cheater cunt Rama' and brags over and over again about how much he benefited from him. Think about it authbabe. Maybe you too have this disconnect. Good Lord, Jason. Robin and Barry in the same boat is insulting to Robin and boats. Suffering from emotional and intellectual disconnect are words I would use to describe Barry not Robin, not ever. Robin runs to the truth about himself, he hides nothing. He is courageous. No matter how much criticism Barry gets for his behavior on FFLife, even if the truth bites him squarely in the ass, he never feels it. Barry is the most self-unaware person I have ever encountered. He is a coward. All things TM and Maharishi are an anathema to him, yet he does not deny the truth of his experience that he once loved Maharishi. IMO Barry never loved Fred or Maharishi, except for what he thought he could take from them. Robin: I could, it is true, surrender myself to my TM-Maharishi past, and become totally consumed by that mystical context--and as you rightly point out, or imply: to do so would undo all of what I have achieved in these twenty-five years. So I treat all things TM and Maharishi as anathema. But this does not mean denying what was true, most profoundly true for me: that Maharishi was like the Son of God come onto the earth--like Christ--and that he raised me up and transformed me and strengthened me and loved me and filled me with his grace and his own enlightened mind and heart. I have come to recognize a higher truth than Maharishi, but I shall never, as long as I remain in this world, ever experience the kind of ecstasy and love and exhilaration and power and energy that I experienced in the presence of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, raunchy. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/323468 TM critics, maybe. It's always puzzled me that the most vocal TM critics on this forum are also Robin's most vocal critics. You'd think they'd be eager to make common cause with him. 6. Have you ever considered the possibility that you *projected* onto him all of the experiences you claim came *from* Maharishi, and that one of the reasons you did this is just to avoid dealing with the possibility that you had an enormous man-crush on him? You admit that the love you felt for him was the highest love you'd ever experienced, but don't seem to deal with the ramifications of that. What's up with that? How can one suggest he has avoided dealing with the possibility that he had an enormous man-crush on Maharishi when he's stated explicitly over and over how much he loved him?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- authfriend authfriend@ wrote: His philosophy is his own, not borrowed, first of all, as Barry would know if he'd been reading Robin's posts. Second, given that he has concluded Maharishi was fundamentally a fraud-- Objectively, I have have been forced to conclude that Maharishi did not possess either the personal or even impersonal integrity to justify what he claimed to be and what he claimed as his purpose in this life. --how would this butter up TMers? --- Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: Could it be that Robin suffers from a disconnect between his emotional relationship with Maharishi and his intellectual relationship with Maharishi? If Maharishi is a fraud and he still loves this fraud and has fond memories of this fraud? That means Robin is in the same boat as Barry who has fond memories of this 'Cheater cunt Rama' and brags over and over again about how much he benefited from him. Think about it authbabe. Maybe you too have this disconnect. --- Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: ROBIN: Jason, you are a sharp fellow--I think we all know that. But as sensitive and sophisticated as your reflections are--and your posts always seem to achieve this standard--there is one point that you seemed to have overlooked. And I think it is an important one. Jason, you don't consider how, when you interpret and/or judge the point of view of another person, you are, in that very act, producing the evidence of your own point of view. Therefore, when arriving at some conclusion about another person, and expressing that conclusion, you realize you place yourself in the very same position that the person you are judging has placed himself or herself in what they have posted. It is obvious that you are entirely oblivious to this truth, a truth which would make you realize something of fundamental importance: If you are determined to evaluate the validity of someone's point of view--as you are doing here (to three separate persons), you realize that YOUR OWN POINT OF VIEW BECOMES SUBJECT IN THAT VERY ACT TO BEING EVALUATED. Am I oblivious to the truth? Atleast tell me what the 'truth' is for whatever it's worth. A simple true or false would suffice. Even if no reader consciously realizes this is what is happening; it still is happening. You subject your own point of view to scrutiny and evaluation in the very act of having rendered a judgment about the validity of another person's point of view. Now, the proof that this does not occur to you is in what you say here. Whatever was going on in my post to raunchy, then in authfriend's commentary on that post--in response to Barry's criticism of that post--your own remarks here are intrinsically superficial, even frivolous. How so? Jason, the point of view you reveal in order to take the position you have in this post demonstrates that you have never subjected that point of view to any kind of assessment which, in principle, mimics what you are doing here in forming a psychological hypothesis about Robin, Authfriend, and Barry. You have made it inevitable that any discerning FFL reader will, even subconsciously, compare the point of view which you are analyzing and explaining causally, with the point of view implicitly which you are revealing in making your hypothesis. And guess what, Jason? You are a singularly thoughtless and non-objective actor in this circumstance--because there is no evidence in anything you say here that you are aware that YOU ARE EXPOSING YOURSELF AND YOUR POINT OF VIEW TO A JUDGMENT. If you are going to make a definitive judgment about someone, that judgment both in the way it is articulated and in its very substance, must contain more intelligence and meaning and reality than the point of view which you would seek to subject to an unfavourable judgment. Your thesis here does't do this. Now it might be possible for the idea behind your thesis to acquire some form of expression which would not bring attention back onto the person who is making it; but in your case, Jason, the absence of self-consciousness with respect to what you were doing in writing this post becomes obvious to the reader's consciousness. THIS GUY DOESN'T EXERCISE ANY SELF-REFLECTION WHEN HE ATTEMPTS TO SAY SOMETHING CRITICAL ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE'S POINT OF VIEW. Now just think about it for awhile, Jason: your idea might have some potential merit if when you uttered it you realized you were forcing your audience to compare the depth and seriousness of what you have proposed (as an explanation for the feelings expressed in a post concerning a particular person) with the posts (and commentary) you are subjecting to your analysis. What I wrote to raunchy, what she wrote to me, what authfriend then wrote in response to Barry's attack on my post to raunchy: each of these
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- authfriend authfriend@ wrote: His philosophy is his own, not borrowed, first of all, as Barry would know if he'd been reading Robin's posts. Second, given that he has concluded Maharishi was fundamentally a fraud-- Objectively, I have have been forced to conclude that Maharishi did not possess either the personal or even impersonal integrity to justify what he claimed to be and what he claimed as his purpose in this life. --how would this butter up TMers? --- Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: Could it be that Robin suffers from a disconnect between his emotional relationship with Maharishi and his intellectual relationship with Maharishi? If Maharishi is a fraud and he still loves this fraud and has fond memories of this fraud? That means Robin is in the same boat as Barry who has fond memories of this 'Cheater cunt Rama' and brags over and over again about how much he benefited from him. Think about it authbabe. Maybe you too have this disconnect. --- raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: Good Lord, Jason. Robin and Barry in the same boat is insulting to Robin and boats. Suffering from emotional and intellectual disconnect are words I would use to describe Barry not Robin, not ever. Robin runs to the truth about himself, he hides nothing. He is courageous. No matter how much criticism Barry gets for his behavior on FFLife, even if the truth bites him squarely in the ass, he never feels it. Barry is the most self-unaware person I have ever encountered. He is a coward. All things TM and Maharishi are an anathema to Robin, yet he does not deny the truth of his experience that he once loved Maharishi. IMO Barry never loved Fred or Maharishi, except for what he thought he could take from them. I think you nailed it. Barry did love Maharishi once upon a time but for some reason denies it. You know, there was a time when I believed that Maharishi was the greatest person ever, after Sage Vyasa and Adi Sankara. I had the same ecstatic belief. It was a period of innocense. It got destroyed when it joined FFL about 8 years ago. I agree that Barry's engagement of Robin is indirect and devious. Atleast Curtis, Xeno and I were direct and forthright. Robin: I could, it is true, surrender myself to my TM-Maharishi past, and become totally consumed by that mystical context--and as you rightly point out, or imply: to do so would undo all of what I have achieved in these twenty-five years. So I treat all things TM and Maharishi as anathema. But this does not mean denying what was true, most profoundly true for me: that Maharishi was like the Son of God come onto the earth--like Christ--and that he raised me up and transformed me and strengthened me and loved me and filled me with his grace and his own enlightened mind and heart. I have come to recognize a higher truth than Maharishi, but I shall never, as long as I remain in this world, ever experience the kind of ecstasy and love and exhilaration and power and energy that I experienced in the presence of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, raunchy. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/323468 TM critics, maybe. It's always puzzled me that the most vocal TM critics on this forum are also Robin's most vocal critics. You'd think they'd be eager to make common cause with him. 6. Have you ever considered the possibility that you *projected* onto him all of the experiences you claim came *from* Maharishi, and that one of the reasons you did this is just to avoid dealing with the possibility that you had an enormous man-crush on him? You admit that the love you felt for him was the highest love you'd ever experienced, but don't seem to deal with the ramifications of that. What's up with that? How can one suggest he has avoided dealing with the possibility that he had an enormous man-crush on Maharishi when he's stated explicitly over and over how much he loved him?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@... wrote: --- authfriend authfriend@ wrote: His philosophy is his own, not borrowed, first of all, as Barry would know if he'd been reading Robin's posts. Second, given that he has concluded Maharishi was fundamentally a fraud-- Objectively, I have have been forced to conclude that Maharishi did not possess either the personal or even impersonal integrity to justify what he claimed to be and what he claimed as his purpose in this life. --how would this butter up TMers? --- Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: Could it be that Robin suffers from a disconnect between his emotional relationship with Maharishi and his intellectual relationship with Maharishi? If Maharishi is a fraud and he still loves this fraud and has fond memories of this fraud? That means Robin is in the same boat as Barry who has fond memories of this 'Cheater cunt Rama' and brags over and over again about how much he benefited from him. Think about it authbabe. Maybe you too have this disconnect. --- Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: ROBIN: Jason, you are a sharp fellow--I think we all know that. But as sensitive and sophisticated as your reflections are--and your posts always seem to achieve this standard--there is one point that you seemed to have overlooked. And I think it is an important one. Jason, you don't consider how, when you interpret and/or judge the point of view of another person, you are, in that very act, producing the evidence of your own point of view. Therefore, when arriving at some conclusion about another person, and expressing that conclusion, you realize you place yourself in the very same position that the person you are judging has placed himself or herself in what they have posted. It is obvious that you are entirely oblivious to this truth, a truth which would make you realize something of fundamental importance: If you are determined to evaluate the validity of someone's point of view--as you are doing here (to three separate persons), you realize that YOUR OWN POINT OF VIEW BECOMES SUBJECT IN THAT VERY ACT TO BEING EVALUATED. Am I oblivious to the truth? Atleast tell me what the 'truth' is for whatever it's worth. A simple true or false would suffice. ROBIN: You are not so much oblivious to the truth, Jason; it it a matter of what it costs you to get to the truth, You do not furnish any evidence in the theory you espouse (split between intellect and emotion vis-a-vis Maharishi Mahesh Yogi) of having assimilated all that I have said in my posts to raunchy--nor that you in any way whatsoever understand how one can reflect on a certain experience from the past which no longer obtains in the present. There is a fatal oversimplification and selectivity in the way you go about forming your interpretation of people, Jason--if your post from this morning is any indication. The business of Maharishi is profound; raunchy and I had an exchange worthy of how profound this business of Maharishi is (even as we differ in how we have come out on this issue). It is not a question of: At least tell me what the 'truth' is for whatever it's worth. In order to be confident we have found the 'truth' about something as contradictory and complex as Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, we must first be willing to process all the relevant data. You have not read my posts over the last sixteen months, else you would know that it is quite possible to have loved Maharishi at one point in one's life (and to remember what it was like when one was having that experience), and then, in the present, when--and I make this clear in one of my posts--Maharishi (supposedly) appeared to one in exactly the form in which he appeared when he elicited such love from me, to see how mystical and false and ultimately even how unnatural that love was. Your thesis ignores this paradox and would seek to make it seem I still am ambivalent about my feelings regarding Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. I am not. I not only disavow any love for him, I have, through what I have passed through in the past twenty-five years, eliminated the condition of vulnerability in myself to him which made such a love possible in the first place. When you go to argue for some thesis which would purport to explain the behaviour of a certain person in relationship to Maharishi, any reader wants to know that you have, in enunciating your thesis, come into contact with: 1. the particular presence of Maharishi in the early seventies: what kind of impression he made upon a Teacher of TM 2. the history of that person's relationship to Maharishi and what he or she has said about the nature and consequence of that relationship 3. how that person views Maharishi now and whether such a view is consistent intellectually and
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: My sense of humor has actually returned and expanded since spending time on FFL.  In part, I think because of the fact that the internet provides a buffer and allows for more objective review or subjective perception without the other person in the room to influence the space.  It allows for all kinds of creative interpretation.  And, because there is actually an amazing amount of funny and perceptive stuff here for the reverent and the irreverent alike.  I've thought a lot about what Curtis said to me re: it seeming like FFL is here to amuse me (paraphrased).  I hate to be brutally honest, but in fact, I did start laughing again after a good several years of being *very serious* and I must say, life is nicer this way. I see laughter as an outlet after making yourself an 'inlet' (my made up word). By being open enough (or sometimes it just happens automatically, naturally, that impulse to guffaw when guffawing didn't seem possible) to allow a thing, a moment, a comment, a situation, to hit you as it will (and often these circumstances aren't inherently funny or you aren't feeling like laughing at all at the time) and voila, one bursts out laughing -uproariously. I just love that because it is so unexpected. Sometimes the laughter is the result of just giving up as well. It can be a surrendering to a moment where you just sort of say,Ok, I give. That is when life just gangs up on you and you just have to meet it with laughter that sometimes holds elements of a bit of anger, frustration, letting go but also allowing one's selfishness and self interest evaporate (but only for a little while!) Anyway, the more I write about it the more I realize how complex that laughing phenomenon is. But I think I get what you're referring to in your statement above and I heartily approve. Dr Dumbass would probably prescribe that as well. (Where is that guy, by the way?) So keep those humour/laughter receptors open to those certain moments that could just as easily have resulted in tears.  I laugh mostly in the context of life or predicaments or the human condition though and not in a mean, shaming or school-yard way.  Sometimes it takes me awhile, but I don't sweat the small stuff nearly as much as I used to. Miss you Curtis.  In your absence, I will be posting a list of your motivations for departure shortly.  Alright, bad joke.  We're cool.  I'm going to try that recipe for eggplant; the fact that it has pecorino in it is intriguing.  From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 2:05 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits  On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 1:57 PM, authfriend authfriend@... wrote:  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: Ha ha ha. That's pretty funny actually. So simple when you know the secret code. ;-) Glad to see you back, Emily, missed you a whole lot. I long suffered being with a person who had no understanding of irony, sarcasm, playfulness. IMHO - It just shows a lack of intelligence and emotional maturity, living in a highly fantasized world - Barry, Jason, Steve, Xeno, et al - too many idiots on this list.  From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 7:48 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: But that does not mean that you are wrong. You may very well have diagnosed me perfectly--but I doubt it. Robin, it's these kind of statements that worry me. You sometimes imply that you 'were' enlightened and sometimes you imply that you were passing yourself as enlightened. Sometimes the contradictions come in the same sentence or paragraph. Hey, Jason--and anyone else who finds themselves occasionally befuddled by Robin's irony--here's a surefire way to tell whether he's using irony: If he says or implies that he might not have been enlightened, was never enlightened, or was only pretending to be enlightened, he's being ironic. Oh, and if he says or implies that he's *still* enlightened, he's also being ironic.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oxcart49 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: --- authfriend authfriend@ wrote: His philosophy is his own, not borrowed, first of all, as Barry would know if he'd been reading Robin's posts. Second, given that he has concluded Maharishi was fundamentally a fraud-- Objectively, I have have been forced to conclude that Maharishi did not possess either the personal or even impersonal integrity to justify what he claimed to be and what he claimed as his purpose in this life. --how would this butter up TMers? Could it be that Robin suffers from a disconnect between his emotional relationship with Maharishi and his intellectual relationship with Maharishi? If Maharishi is a fraud and he still loves this fraud and has fond memories of this fraud? That means Robin is in the same boat as Barry who has fond memories of this 'Cheater cunt Rama' and brags over and over again about how much he benefited from him. Think about it authbabe. Interesting way to address her, I don't think I've seen this one yet. Maybe you too have this disconnect. I think Judy mostly states the facts. Her disconnect(s), foibles and personal hangups don't really seem to be at the forefront of what she writes. Often she points out mistakes, factual errors, timeline faults. Frequently the recipient of these corrections doesn't like it and accuses her of this and that. But if you really look she doesn't seem to have any personal agendas or real vendettas going on (although some are certainly the target of her unwavering attention). In some ways I see her as the conscience we should all possess but, for various reasons at times, don't. Of course Barry and Curtis would disagree mightily with this assessment. Thank you, oxcart. I'm honestly not sure what Jason is referring to. I never had an emotional relationship with Maharishi, was never even in his presence.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@... wrote: snip Am I oblivious to the truth? Atleast tell me what the 'truth' is for whatever it's worth. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!! (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: snip Am I oblivious to the truth? Atleast tell me what the 'truth' is for whatever it's worth. --- authfriend authfriend@... wrote: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!! (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Why not? Is this your subjective or objective judgement?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@... wrote: --- Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: snip Am I oblivious to the truth? Atleast tell me what the 'truth' is for whatever it's worth. --- authfriend authfriend@ wrote: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!! (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Why not? Is this your subjective or objective judgement? ROBIN: Did you read my two posts to you today, Jason? If you had, that should give you pause before you choose to write something that comes this easily--and doesn't indicate you even know how to go towards what is the truth. The truth here being: Is authfriend right? or did she misjudge you? That is the question she was posing to you. In order to have something meaningful to say you have to enter into her indictment of you, and discover, for yourself, whether it is true or not. In typical Jason fashion you did anything but this. You refused to take seriously the possibility that it might be true. That is, objectively true. To have the satisfaction of knowing it is NOT true, you must within yourself find some experience, some evidence on the record, which would refute this judgment of authfriend. And if you do have some experience of truth about yourself, and evidence in your posts, which exonerates you from this charge, then you can express this experience, present this evidence, Jason, and the reader will be able to make some determination as to which judgment is the truer one, authfriend's or yours. But certainly so far, given what you say here, authfriend has rendered an objective judgment. Because if you could handle the truth you would seek out the sources within yourself which would enable you to know whether authfriend was right or she was wrong. Do you follow this, Jason? It is necessary that you understand me, first of all to weigh whether what I have said here is pertinent to your question to authfriend; second, to be able to face authfriend directly and either acknowledge the painful truth of what she has said--or to effectually rebut her.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@... wrote: You know, there was a time when I believed that Maharishi was the greatest person ever, after Sage Vyasa and Adi Sankara. I had the same ecstatic belief. It was a period of innocense. It got destroyed when it joined FFL about 8 years ago. That's quite some karma for Rick to carry with him into the future.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: snip Am I oblivious to the truth? Atleast tell me what the 'truth' is for whatever it's worth. --- authfriend authfriend@ wrote: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!! (Sorry, couldn't resist.) --- Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: Why not? Is this your subjective or objective judgement? --- Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: ROBIN: Did you read my two posts to you today, Jason? If you had, that should give you pause before you choose to write something that comes this easily--and doesn't indicate you even know how to go towards what is the truth. The truth here being: Is authfriend right? or did she misjudge you? That is the question she was posing to you. In order to have something meaningful to say you have to enter into her indictment of you, and discover, for yourself, whether it is true or not. In typical Jason fashion you did anything but this. You refused to take seriously the possibility that it might be true. That is, objectively true. To have the satisfaction of knowing it is NOT true, you must within yourself find some experience, some evidence on the record, which would refute this judgment of authfriend. And if you do have some experience of truth about yourself, and evidence in your posts, which exonerates you from this charge, then you can express this experience, present this evidence, Jason, and the reader will be able to make some determination as to which judgment is the truer one, authfriend's or yours. But certainly so far, given what you say here, authfriend has rendered an objective judgment. Because if you could handle the truth you would seek out the sources within yourself which would enable you to know whether authfriend was right or she was wrong. Do you follow this, Jason? It is necessary that you understand me, first of all to weigh whether what I have said here is pertinent to your question to authfriend; second, to be able to face authfriend directly and either acknowledge the painful truth of what she has said--or to effectually rebut her. You said that you disavow any love for him. But all that you said in the past months seems to have lot of emotions. This is where you and others differ in the outlook. The others when they look back down the 'memory lane' or 'history lane' never expresssed such sugary sentiments.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@... wrote: --- Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: snip Am I oblivious to the truth? Atleast tell me what the 'truth' is for whatever it's worth. --- authfriend authfriend@ wrote: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!! (Sorry, couldn't resist.) --- Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: Why not? Is this your subjective or objective judgement? --- Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: ROBIN: Did you read my two posts to you today, Jason? If you had, that should give you pause before you choose to write something that comes this easily--and doesn't indicate you even know how to go towards what is the truth. The truth here being: Is authfriend right? or did she misjudge you? That is the question she was posing to you. In order to have something meaningful to say you have to enter into her indictment of you, and discover, for yourself, whether it is true or not. In typical Jason fashion you did anything but this. You refused to take seriously the possibility that it might be true. That is, objectively true. To have the satisfaction of knowing it is NOT true, you must within yourself find some experience, some evidence on the record, which would refute this judgment of authfriend. And if you do have some experience of truth about yourself, and evidence in your posts, which exonerates you from this charge, then you can express this experience, present this evidence, Jason, and the reader will be able to make some determination as to which judgment is the truer one, authfriend's or yours. But certainly so far, given what you say here, authfriend has rendered an objective judgment. Because if you could handle the truth you would seek out the sources within yourself which would enable you to know whether authfriend was right or she was wrong. Do you follow this, Jason? It is necessary that you understand me, first of all to weigh whether what I have said here is pertinent to your question to authfriend; second, to be able to face authfriend directly and either acknowledge the painful truth of what she has said--or to effectually rebut her. You said that you disavow any love for him. But all that you said in the past months seems to have lot of emotions. This is where you and others differ in the outlook. The others when they look back down the 'memory lane' or 'history lane' never expresssed such sugary sentiments. ROBIN: You have nailed it, Jason. Authfriend has made a miscalculation: it is not that you can't *handle* the truth; you blithely remain ignorant that it is even around. I would like to see you *not* handling the truth. That would be something rather refreshing. Barry wrote about the abnormality of this kind of love [love of Maharishi]. I answered him in detail. And that post renders what you say here irrelevant. The toothache response, remember? Your confidence in your own point of view, Jason, can be partly explained--or so I conclude from your posts of today--by how deep you are willing to go into some phenomenon, in order to understand it, see it, experience. That is, as it really is. Life is going to have to surprise you but good to alert you to what is going on when you post, Jason. I will be incredulous if a single thing I have said to you today is there in your understanding. I will give you a simple thing to think about: The sense of the personally tragic in the hidden interior life of Bevan Morris. Have you ever found that suffering yielded up a truth to you, Jason, about yourself, about life, which could be delivered in no other way than through your having suffered? Another simple thing to think about. Each person is a universe unto themselves. Life is a mysterious experience. I am sure death is too. You are inside something awesome and unbelievable, Jason: the universe. I will pray that somehow you end up actually handling the truth. But first of all you have to know that it is somewhere nearby. Effortlessness is not the required technique here, Jason. I was thinking today who Maharishi might be as just a person had he somehow found a way to become de-enlghtened--as I have claim I have. I would like to meet that person. There is nothing like being in Unity Consciousness for ten years and then eventually not being in Unity Consciousness. I would not miss out on this experience. It made me. You can't put your life inside a teacup, Jason.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
Am I oblivious to the truth? Atleast tell me what the 'truth' is for whatever it's worth. authfriend: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!! This is a fib - there's no way you could know if Jason can handle the TRUTH. LoL! (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Sorry, couldn't resist.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: snip Am I oblivious to the truth? Atleast tell me what the 'truth' is for whatever it's worth. --- authfriend authfriend@ wrote: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!! (Sorry, couldn't resist.) --- Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: Why not? Is this your subjective or objective judgement? --- Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: ROBIN: Did you read my two posts to you today, Jason? If you had, that should give you pause before you choose to write something that comes this easily--and doesn't indicate you even know how to go towards what is the truth. The truth here being: Is authfriend right? or did she misjudge you? That is the question she was posing to you. In order to have something meaningful to say you have to enter into her indictment of you, and discover, for yourself, whether it is true or not. In typical Jason fashion you did anything but this. You refused to take seriously the possibility that it might be true. That is, objectively true. To have the satisfaction of knowing it is NOT true, you must within yourself find some experience, some evidence on the record, which would refute this judgment of authfriend. And if you do have some experience of truth about yourself, and evidence in your posts, which exonerates you from this charge, then you can express this experience, present this evidence, Jason, and the reader will be able to make some determination as to which judgment is the truer one, authfriend's or yours. But certainly so far, given what you say here, authfriend has rendered an objective judgment. Because if you could handle the truth you would seek out the sources within yourself which would enable you to know whether authfriend was right or she was wrong. Do you follow this, Jason? It is necessary that you understand me, first of all to weigh whether what I have said here is pertinent to your question to authfriend; second, to be able to face authfriend directly and either acknowledge the painful truth of what she has said--or to effectually rebut her. --- Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: You said that you disavow any love for him. But all that you said in the past months seems to have lot of emotions. This is where you and others differ in the outlook. The others when they look back down the 'memory lane' or 'history lane' never expresssed such sugary sentiments. --- Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: ROBIN: You have nailed it, Jason. Authfriend has made a miscalculation: it is not that you can't *handle* the truth; you blithely remain ignorant that it is even around. I would like to see you *not* handling the truth. That would be something rather refreshing. Barry wrote about the abnormality of this kind of love [love of Maharishi]. I answered him in detail. And that post renders what you say here irrelevant. The toothache response, remember? Your confidence in your own point of view, Jason, can be partly explained--or so I conclude from your posts of today--by how deep you are willing to go into some phenomenon, in order to understand it, see it, experience. That is, as it really is. Life is going to have to surprise you but good to alert you to what is going on when you post, Jason. I will be incredulous if a single thing I have said to you today is there in your understanding. I will give you a simple thing to think about: The sense of the personally tragic in the hidden interior life of Bevan Morris. Well, never met Bevan but I do know that he is basicaly a vedic bureaucrat. Have you ever found that suffering yielded up a truth to you, Jason, about yourself, about life, which could be delivered in no other way than through your having suffered? I think if one suffers for the sake of the truth, yes. ye shall seek the truth and the truth shall set you free. Another simple thing to think about. Each person is a universe unto themselves. Life is a mysterious experience. I am sure death is too. You are inside something awesome and unbelievable, Jason: the universe. I will pray that somehow you end up actually handling the truth. But first of all you have to know that it is somewhere nearby. Effortlessness is not the required technique here, Jason. I was thinking today who Maharishi might be as just a person had he somehow found a way to become de-enlghtened--as I have claim I have. I would like to meet that person. There is nothing like being in Unity Consciousness for ten years and then eventually not being in Unity Consciousness. I would not miss out on this experience. It made me. I don't think there is a consenus on this if Maharishi was ever enlightened. You can't put your life inside a teacup, Jason.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@... wrote: --- Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: snip Am I oblivious to the truth? Atleast tell me what the 'truth' is for whatever it's worth. --- authfriend authfriend@ wrote: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!! (Sorry, couldn't resist.) --- Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: Why not? Is this your subjective or objective judgement? --- Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: ROBIN: Did you read my two posts to you today, Jason? If you had, that should give you pause before you choose to write something that comes this easily--and doesn't indicate you even know how to go towards what is the truth. The truth here being: Is authfriend right? or did she misjudge you? That is the question she was posing to you. In order to have something meaningful to say you have to enter into her indictment of you, and discover, for yourself, whether it is true or not. In typical Jason fashion you did anything but this. You refused to take seriously the possibility that it might be true. That is, objectively true. To have the satisfaction of knowing it is NOT true, you must within yourself find some experience, some evidence on the record, which would refute this judgment of authfriend. And if you do have some experience of truth about yourself, and evidence in your posts, which exonerates you from this charge, then you can express this experience, present this evidence, Jason, and the reader will be able to make some determination as to which judgment is the truer one, authfriend's or yours. But certainly so far, given what you say here, authfriend has rendered an objective judgment. Because if you could handle the truth you would seek out the sources within yourself which would enable you to know whether authfriend was right or she was wrong. Do you follow this, Jason? It is necessary that you understand me, first of all to weigh whether what I have said here is pertinent to your question to authfriend; second, to be able to face authfriend directly and either acknowledge the painful truth of what she has said--or to effectually rebut her. --- Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: You said that you disavow any love for him. But all that you said in the past months seems to have lot of emotions. This is where you and others differ in the outlook. The others when they look back down the 'memory lane' or 'history lane' never expresssed such sugary sentiments. --- Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: ROBIN: You have nailed it, Jason. Authfriend has made a miscalculation: it is not that you can't *handle* the truth; you blithely remain ignorant that it is even around. I would like to see you *not* handling the truth. That would be something rather refreshing. Barry wrote about the abnormality of this kind of love [love of Maharishi]. I answered him in detail. And that post renders what you say here irrelevant. The toothache response, remember? Your confidence in your own point of view, Jason, can be partly explained--or so I conclude from your posts of today--by how deep you are willing to go into some phenomenon, in order to understand it, see it, experience. That is, as it really is. Life is going to have to surprise you but good to alert you to what is going on when you post, Jason. I will be incredulous if a single thing I have said to you today is there in your understanding. I will give you a simple thing to think about: The sense of the personally tragic in the hidden interior life of Bevan Morris. Well, never met Bevan but I do know that he is basicaly a vedic bureaucrat. ROBIN: Is that what he amounts to in the end, Jason? You exemplify in this judgment what I have been trying to get across to you in four posts. Does Bevan, from inside, the experience he has of being the unique and unrepeatable person Bevan Morris, sense he is basically a vedic bureaucrat? He attained a First Class at Cambridge [that means a lot more than you know]. He lived in Maharishi's ashram in Rishikesh. He knew Maharishi probably as well as anyone. He is a very smart and thoughtful person--he was once a child, he had a loving mother. He knows from inside what Maharishi is all about. He has made an irrevocable decision to bear it out to the end, as a true apostle of Maharishi and all his Teachings. He has judged Maharishi from close-up, and decided he is the most remarkable and powerful human being of his lifetime. *He believes in the truth that Maharishi was It*, and that he has made a prudent and blessed decision to throw his lot in with Maharishi--come what may. But he has been made aware--painfully, excruciatingly--of the many
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: snip Am I oblivious to the truth? Atleast tell me what the 'truth' is for whatever it's worth. --- authfriend authfriend@ wrote: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!! (Sorry, couldn't resist.) --- Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: Why not? Is this your subjective or objective judgement? --- Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: ROBIN: Did you read my two posts to you today, Jason? If you had, that should give you pause before you choose to write something that comes this easily--and doesn't indicate you even know how to go towards what is the truth. The truth here being: Is authfriend right? or did she misjudge you? That is the question she was posing to you. In order to have something meaningful to say you have to enter into her indictment of you, and discover, for yourself, whether it is true or not. In typical Jason fashion you did anything but this. You refused to take seriously the possibility that it might be true. That is, objectively true. To have the satisfaction of knowing it is NOT true, you must within yourself find some experience, some evidence on the record, which would refute this judgment of authfriend. And if you do have some experience of truth about yourself, and evidence in your posts, which exonerates you from this charge, then you can express this experience, present this evidence, Jason, and the reader will be able to make some determination as to which judgment is the truer one, authfriend's or yours. But certainly so far, given what you say here, authfriend has rendered an objective judgment. Because if you could handle the truth you would seek out the sources within yourself which would enable you to know whether authfriend was right or she was wrong. Do you follow this, Jason? It is necessary that you understand me, first of all to weigh whether what I have said here is pertinent to your question to authfriend; second, to be able to face authfriend directly and either acknowledge the painful truth of what she has said--or to effectually rebut her. --- Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: You said that you disavow any love for him. But all that you said in the past months seems to have lot of emotions. This is where you and others differ in the outlook. The others when they look back down the 'memory lane' or 'history lane' never expresssed such sugary sentiments. --- Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: ROBIN: You have nailed it, Jason. Authfriend has made a miscalculation: it is not that you can't *handle* the truth; you blithely remain ignorant that it is even around. I would like to see you *not* handling the truth. That would be something rather refreshing. Barry wrote about the abnormality of this kind of love [love of Maharishi]. I answered him in detail. And that post renders what you say here irrelevant. The toothache response, remember? Your confidence in your own point of view, Jason, can be partly explained--or so I conclude from your posts of today--by how deep you are willing to go into some phenomenon, in order to understand it, see it, experience. That is, as it really is. Life is going to have to surprise you but good to alert you to what is going on when you post, Jason. I will be incredulous if a single thing I have said to you today is there in your understanding. I will give you a simple thing to think about: The sense of the personally tragic in the hidden interior life of Bevan Morris. --- Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: Well, never met Bevan but I do know that he is basicaly a vedic bureaucrat. --- Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: ROBIN: Is that what he amounts to in the end, Jason? You exemplify in this judgment what I have been trying to get across to you in four posts. Does Bevan, from inside, the experience he has of being the unique and unrepeatable person Bevan Morris, sense he is basically a vedic bureaucrat? He attained a First Class at Cambridge [that means a lot more than you know]. He lived in Maharishi's ashram in Rishikesh. He knew Maharishi probably as well as anyone. He is a very smart and thoughtful person--he was once a child, he had a loving mother. He knows from inside what Maharishi is all about. He has made an irrevocable decision to bear it out to the end, as a true apostle of Maharishi and all his Teachings. He has judged Maharishi from close-up, and decided he is the most remarkable and powerful human being of his lifetime. *He believes in the truth that Maharishi was It*, and that he has made a prudent and blessed decision to
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: snip Am I oblivious to the truth? Atleast tell me what the 'truth' is for whatever it's worth. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!! Either could I! [Blog Seo] (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@... wrote: --- Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: snip Am I oblivious to the truth? Atleast tell me what the 'truth' is for whatever it's worth. --- authfriend authfriend@ wrote: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!! (Sorry, couldn't resist.) --- Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: Why not? Is this your subjective or objective judgement? --- Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: ROBIN: Did you read my two posts to you today, Jason? If you had, that should give you pause before you choose to write something that comes this easily--and doesn't indicate you even know how to go towards what is the truth. The truth here being: Is authfriend right? or did she misjudge you? That is the question she was posing to you. In order to have something meaningful to say you have to enter into her indictment of you, and discover, for yourself, whether it is true or not. In typical Jason fashion you did anything but this. You refused to take seriously the possibility that it might be true. That is, objectively true. To have the satisfaction of knowing it is NOT true, you must within yourself find some experience, some evidence on the record, which would refute this judgment of authfriend. And if you do have some experience of truth about yourself, and evidence in your posts, which exonerates you from this charge, then you can express this experience, present this evidence, Jason, and the reader will be able to make some determination as to which judgment is the truer one, authfriend's or yours. But certainly so far, given what you say here, authfriend has rendered an objective judgment. Because if you could handle the truth you would seek out the sources within yourself which would enable you to know whether authfriend was right or she was wrong. Do you follow this, Jason? It is necessary that you understand me, first of all to weigh whether what I have said here is pertinent to your question to authfriend; second, to be able to face authfriend directly and either acknowledge the painful truth of what she has said--or to effectually rebut her. --- Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: You said that you disavow any love for him. But all that you said in the past months seems to have lot of emotions. This is where you and others differ in the outlook. The others when they look back down the 'memory lane' or 'history lane' never expresssed such sugary sentiments. --- Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: ROBIN: You have nailed it, Jason. Authfriend has made a miscalculation: it is not that you can't *handle* the truth; you blithely remain ignorant that it is even around. I would like to see you *not* handling the truth. That would be something rather refreshing. Barry wrote about the abnormality of this kind of love [love of Maharishi]. I answered him in detail. And that post renders what you say here irrelevant. The toothache response, remember? Your confidence in your own point of view, Jason, can be partly explained--or so I conclude from your posts of today--by how deep you are willing to go into some phenomenon, in order to understand it, see it, experience. That is, as it really is. Life is going to have to surprise you but good to alert you to what is going on when you post, Jason. I will be incredulous if a single thing I have said to you today is there in your understanding. I will give you a simple thing to think about: The sense of the personally tragic in the hidden interior life of Bevan Morris. --- Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: Well, never met Bevan but I do know that he is basicaly a vedic bureaucrat. --- Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: ROBIN: Is that what he amounts to in the end, Jason? You exemplify in this judgment what I have been trying to get across to you in four posts. Does Bevan, from inside, the experience he has of being the unique and unrepeatable person Bevan Morris, sense he is basically a vedic bureaucrat? He attained a First Class at Cambridge [that means a lot more than you know]. He lived in Maharishi's ashram in Rishikesh. He knew Maharishi probably as well as anyone. He is a very smart and thoughtful person--he was once a child, he had a loving mother. He knows from inside what Maharishi is all about. He has made an irrevocable decision to bear it out to the end, as a true apostle of Maharishi and all his Teachings. He has judged Maharishi from close-up, and
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: snip Am I oblivious to the truth? Atleast tell me what the 'truth' is for whatever it's worth. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMzd40i8TfA Couldn't find this (just the one line) before, or I'd have posted it instead. Either could I! [Blog Seo] (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@... wrote: --- authfriend authfriend@ wrote: His philosophy is his own, not borrowed, first of all, as Barry would know if he'd been reading Robin's posts. Second, given that he has concluded Maharishi was fundamentally a fraud-- Objectively, I have have been forced to conclude that Maharishi did not possess either the personal or even impersonal integrity to justify what he claimed to be and what he claimed as his purpose in this life. --how would this butter up TMers? Could it be that Robin suffers from a disconnect between his emotional relationship with Maharishi and his intellectual relationship with Maharishi? If Maharishi is a fraud and he still loves this fraud and has fond memories of this fraud? That means Robin is in the same boat as Barry who has fond memories of this 'Cheater cunt Rama' and brags over and over again about how much he benefited from him. Think about it authbabe. Maybe you too have this disconnect. Good Lord, Jason. Robin and Barry in the same boat is insulting to Robin and boats. Suffering from emotional and intellectual disconnect are words I would use to describe Barry not Robin, not ever. Robin runs to the truth about himself, he hides nothing. He is courageous. No matter how much criticism Barry gets for his behavior on FFLife, even if the truth bites him squarely in the ass, he never feels it. Barry is the most self-unaware person I have ever encountered. He is a coward. All things TM and Maharishi are an anathema to Robin, yet he does not deny the truth of his experience that he once loved Maharishi. IMO Barry never loved Fred or Maharishi, except for what he thought he could take from them. Robin: I could, it is true, surrender myself to my TM-Maharishi past, and become totally consumed by that mystical context--and as you rightly point out, or imply: to do so would undo all of what I have achieved in these twenty-five years. So I treat all things TM and Maharishi as anathema. But this does not mean denying what was true, most profoundly true for me: that Maharishi was like the Son of God come onto the earth--like Christ--and that he raised me up and transformed me and strengthened me and loved me and filled me with his grace and his own enlightened mind and heart. I have come to recognize a higher truth than Maharishi, but I shall never, as long as I remain in this world, ever experience the kind of ecstasy and love and exhilaration and power and energy that I experienced in the presence of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, raunchy. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/323468 TM critics, maybe. It's always puzzled me that the most vocal TM critics on this forum are also Robin's most vocal critics. You'd think they'd be eager to make common cause with him. 6. Have you ever considered the possibility that you *projected* onto him all of the experiences you claim came *from* Maharishi, and that one of the reasons you did this is just to avoid dealing with the possibility that you had an enormous man-crush on him? You admit that the love you felt for him was the highest love you'd ever experienced, but don't seem to deal with the ramifications of that. What's up with that? How can one suggest he has avoided dealing with the possibility that he had an enormous man-crush on Maharishi when he's stated explicitly over and over how much he loved him?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: He attained a First Class at Cambridge [that means a lot more than you know]. He lived in Maharishi's ashram in Rishikesh. He knew Maharishi probably as well as anyone. He is a very smart and thoughtful person--he was once a child, he had a loving mother. He knows from inside what Maharishi is all about. He has made an irrevocable decision to bear it out to the end, as a true apostle of Maharishi and all his Teachings. Maharishi have made, and is continuing to make, a remarkable number of people eligible for Masterhood. Bevan being one of better known of these blessed souls. It is said the the Lord Buddha made 500 people enlightened. I think we will do better. Maharishi, River Rhine, Germany 1982
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
I was around Bevan enough to know that if that son of a bitch is a Master, I'd rather go live on Mars. From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 5:21 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: He attained a First Class at Cambridge [that means a lot more than you know]. He lived in Maharishi's ashram in Rishikesh. He knew Maharishi probably as well as anyone. He is a very smart and thoughtful person--he was once a child, he had a loving mother. He knows from inside what Maharishi is all about. He has made an irrevocable decision to bear it out to the end, as a true apostle of Maharishi and all his Teachings. Maharishi have made, and is continuing to make, a remarkable number of people eligible for Masterhood. Bevan being one of better known of these blessed souls. It is said the the Lord Buddha made 500 people enlightened. I think we will do better. Maharishi, River Rhine, Germany 1982
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
Dear Judy, I think you and I were the only ones that knew where that line really came from. Jack, when he shouted that, conveyed the best of who Nicholson is as an actor. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: snip Am I oblivious to the truth? Atleast tell me what the 'truth' is for whatever it's worth. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMzd40i8TfA Couldn't find this (just the one line) before, or I'd have posted it instead. Either could I! [Blog Seo] (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: Dear Judy, I think you and I were the only ones that knew where that line really came from. Jack, when he shouted that, conveyed the best of who Nicholson is as an actor. I really liked that second sentence. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: snip Am I oblivious to the truth? Atleast tell me what the 'truth' is for whatever it's worth. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMzd40i8TfA Couldn't find this (just the one line) before, or I'd have posted it instead. Either could I! [Blog Seo] (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: Dear Judy, I think you and I were the only ones that knew where that line really came from. Gee, I'd be surprised if that were the case. It's become something of a meme. I hear people imitating it all the time. Jack, when he shouted that, conveyed the best of who Nicholson is as an actor. For me, that's not saying much. Don't mean to be contrary, but I think he's highly overrated. He's not bad when he's playing a Nicholson role, as in A Few Good Men, but even in that film, in that big speech, there's something disturbingly rote in his delivery. All he really had to do was be vehement and get the words out clearly, and that's no challenge for him. In a strange way, he was phoning it in, it seemed to me. Whenever he's cast against type, it's been a disaster, as far as I'm concerned. The only non-Nicholson role I've ever thought he was good in was as Eugene O'Neill in Warren Beatty's Reds. You'd hardly know it was Jack Nicholson, the actor was so perfectly subsumed in the character. I would love to know how Beatty (who directed) managed to get him to do that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: snip Am I oblivious to the truth? Atleast tell me what the 'truth' is for whatever it's worth. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMzd40i8TfA Couldn't find this (just the one line) before, or I'd have posted it instead. Either could I! [Blog Seo] (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: Dear Judy, I think you and I were the only ones that knew where that line really came from. Gee, I'd be surprised if that were the case. It's become something of a meme. I hear people imitating it all the time. Jack, when he shouted that, conveyed the best of who Nicholson is as an actor. For me, that's not saying much. Don't mean to be contrary, but I think he's highly overrated. He's not bad when he's playing a Nicholson role, as in A Few Good Men, but even in that film, in that big speech, there's something disturbingly rote in his delivery. All he really had to do was be vehement and get the words out clearly, and that's no challenge for him. In a strange way, he was phoning it in, it seemed to me. Ah, you can be as contrary as you like, I don't mind. Jack, for me, is an icon. He is just so much 'Jack' as this recognizable Hollywood institution. Those eyebrows, that smirk, that smarmy voice, that cool thing he has going on, maybe not now but for sure back then. It isn't that I think I would like the man in person but he certainly is regarded as close to royalty as is possible in the industry. He can be such a snarky curmudgeon, a really sleazy bad guy. Anyway, I, unlike you, found him really powerful in that scene in A Few Good Men. He actually reminded me of my father during that outburst in the courtroom. My dad had this ex-marine machismo at times and the guy could command an audience whether you agreed with what he was saying or not. If I remember correctly Jack did something pretty darn good in About Schmidt. I haven't seen it for a while so I might not feel that today but at the time I liked it a lot. Check it out if you haven't seen it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/About_Schmidt Whenever he's cast against type, it's been a disaster, as far as I'm concerned. The only non-Nicholson role I've ever thought he was good in was as Eugene O'Neill in Warren Beatty's Reds. You'd hardly know it was Jack Nicholson, the actor was so perfectly subsumed in the character. I would love to know how Beatty (who directed) managed to get him to do that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: snip Am I oblivious to the truth? Atleast tell me what the 'truth' is for whatever it's worth. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMzd40i8TfA Couldn't find this (just the one line) before, or I'd have posted it instead. Either could I! [Blog Seo] (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
But that does not mean that you are wrong. You may very well have diagnosed me perfectly--but I doubt it. Robin, it's these kind of statements that worry me. You sometimes imply that you 'were' enlightened and sometimes you imply that you were passing yourself as enlightened. Sometimes the contradictions come in the same sentence or paragraph. I seriously doubt if it's possible for anyone to get enlightened by this love for another man, even if it happens to be Maharishi. --- Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: Dear Barry, I think, contrary to what I would have expected, you have raised some significant points here. I am not sure how I would go about answering you. I have had, up until reading your post today, a certain way of seeing myself and the world. Perhaps in some sense, that has been altered by reading--three times now--your post. I don't think, though, it is fair to expect me to respond in full--I mean immediately. There is a lot to digest here--not to mention allow myself to even think might be true. I just don't believe you have a right to criticize me like this. Why should I accept the judgment of someone who has never met me? You have never been friendly towards me; why should I believe you have anything to tell me, Barry? If any of what you have said here is actually true, it is only unconsciously so; I did not set out--as far as I know--to get a following. But that does not mean that you are wrong. You may very well have diagnosed me perfectly--but I doubt it. Thanks anyway, Barry; but I really don't see how I can do anything more than just say: I will think hard about all that you have said to me, but it will be very hard to accept that it is true. Please give my best to Curtis. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Dear Robin, For some reason, possibly the result of reading about compassion and deciding to subject myself to one of your rants *out* of compassion, I actually read the post below. Taking you at your word in this rant and in others, about your willingness to see yourself from points of view other than your own, I'm curious as to how you'll react to a few unrequested observations: 1. As many have pointed out, how does this letter to Raunchy *not* fit into the category of trolling for TMers in hopes of still attracting adoration, if not actual followers? Who else would CARE about what you felt and continue to feel for Maharishi? 2. Also as many have pointed out, for all your claims of challenging past assumptions, there seems to be one that you have never challenged, and continue to assert (again, only to TMers, the only group for which this claim would have any caveat or meaning) -- that you were once in Unity Consciousness as defined by MMY. Have you *ever* entertained the notion that you were just experiencing a bout of psychosis that you *interpreted* as a state that would be pleasing to the guy you had a man-crush on (Maharishi)? 3. Also, have you ever considered the possibility that all of the flashy experiences you attribute to having in Maharishi's presence are simply the result *OF* having a rather severe man-crush on him? This is a question that anyone reading that you have spent the last 25 years of your life living with a guy who seems to have a similar man-crush on you might ask. Just sayin'... 4. Have you ever pondered the *extraordinary* ramifications of stating that my perception of a matter concerning myself was incorrect happened for the *first* time in your life at a rather advanced age? That statement is pretty much a self-diagnosis of a person whose entire life to that point had been spent under the influence of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I would assert that no one *not* suffering from NPD could have possibly reached such an age without encountering a few things about himself or herself that they'd been incorrect about. 5. Have you ever considered the possibility that one of the reasons you still claim to hold Maharishi to be so important and so powerful is that you're still trying to butter up the only possible audience for your narcissistic ramblings about yourself and your borrowed philosophy -- TMers or former TMers? 6. Have you ever considered the possibility that you *projected* onto him all of the experiences you claim came *from* Maharishi, and that one of the reasons you did this is just to avoid dealing with the possibility that you had an enormous man-crush on him? You admit that the love you felt for him was the highest love you'd ever experienced, but don't seem to deal with the ramifications of that. What's up with that? Are you saying that your love for him was higher than your love for your wife? Adoring a holy man to that degree is OK, but adoring just another man isn't? I'm penning these questions NOT because I'm
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
lamb to the slaughter Jason, time to round up all those fierce warriors of yours... From: Jason jedi_sp...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:33 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits But that does not mean that you are wrong. You may very well have diagnosed me perfectly--but I doubt it. Robin, it's these kind of statements that worry me. You sometimes imply that you 'were' enlightened and sometimes you imply that you were passing yourself as enlightened. Sometimes the contradictions come in the same sentence or paragraph. I seriously doubt if it's possible for anyone to get enlightened by this love for another man, even if it happens to be Maharishi. --- Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: Dear Barry, I think, contrary to what I would have expected, you have raised some significant points here. I am not sure how I would go about answering you. I have had, up until reading your post today, a certain way of seeing myself and the world. Perhaps in some sense, that has been altered by reading--three times now--your post. I don't think, though, it is fair to expect me to respond in full--I mean immediately. There is a lot to digest here--not to mention allow myself to even think might be true. I just don't believe you have a right to criticize me like this. Why should I accept the judgment of someone who has never met me? You have never been friendly towards me; why should I believe you have anything to tell me, Barry? If any of what you have said here is actually true, it is only unconsciously so; I did not set out--as far as I know--to get a following. But that does not mean that you are wrong. You may very well have diagnosed me perfectly--but I doubt it. Thanks anyway, Barry; but I really don't see how I can do anything more than just say: I will think hard about all that you have said to me, but it will be very hard to accept that it is true. Please give my best to Curtis. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Dear Robin, For some reason, possibly the result of reading about compassion and deciding to subject myself to one of your rants *out* of compassion, I actually read the post below. Taking you at your word in this rant and in others, about your willingness to see yourself from points of view other than your own, I'm curious as to how you'll react to a few unrequested observations: 1. As many have pointed out, how does this letter to Raunchy *not* fit into the category of trolling for TMers in hopes of still attracting adoration, if not actual followers? Who else would CARE about what you felt and continue to feel for Maharishi? 2. Also as many have pointed out, for all your claims of challenging past assumptions, there seems to be one that you have never challenged, and continue to assert (again, only to TMers, the only group for which this claim would have any caveat or meaning) -- that you were once in Unity Consciousness as defined by MMY. Have you *ever* entertained the notion that you were just experiencing a bout of psychosis that you *interpreted* as a state that would be pleasing to the guy you had a man-crush on (Maharishi)? 3. Also, have you ever considered the possibility that all of the flashy experiences you attribute to having in Maharishi's presence are simply the result *OF* having a rather severe man-crush on him? This is a question that anyone reading that you have spent the last 25 years of your life living with a guy who seems to have a similar man-crush on you might ask. Just sayin'... 4. Have you ever pondered the *extraordinary* ramifications of stating that my perception of a matter concerning myself was incorrect happened for the *first* time in your life at a rather advanced age? That statement is pretty much a self-diagnosis of a person whose entire life to that point had been spent under the influence of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I would assert that no one *not* suffering from NPD could have possibly reached such an age without encountering a few things about himself or herself that they'd been incorrect about. 5. Have you ever considered the possibility that one of the reasons you still claim to hold Maharishi to be so important and so powerful is that you're still trying to butter up the only possible audience for your narcissistic ramblings about yourself and your borrowed philosophy -- TMers or former TMers? 6. Have you ever considered the possibility that you *projected* onto him all of the experiences you claim came *from* Maharishi, and that one of the reasons you did this is just to avoid dealing with the possibility that you had an enormous man-crush on him? You admit that the love you felt for him was the highest love you'd ever experienced
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: lamb to the slaughter Jason, time to round up all those fierce warriors of yours... From: Jason jedi_spock@... Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:33 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits But that does not mean that you are wrong. You may very well have diagnosed me perfectly--but I doubt it. Robin, it's these kind of statements that worry me. You sometimes imply that you 'were' enlightened and sometimes you imply that you were passing yourself as enlightened. Sometimes the contradictions come in the same sentence or paragraph. I seriously doubt if it's possible for anyone to get enlightened by this love for another man, even if it happens to be Maharishi. --- Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Dear Barry, I think, contrary to what I would have expected, you have raised some significant points here. I am not sure how I would go about answering you. I have had, up until reading your post today, a certain way of seeing myself and the world. Perhaps in some sense, that has been altered by reading--three times now--your post. I don't think, though, it is fair to expect me to respond in full--I mean immediately. There is a lot to digest here--not to mention allow myself to even think might be true. I just don't believe you have a right to criticize me like this. Why should I accept the judgment of someone who has never met me? You have never been friendly towards me; why should I believe you have anything to tell me, Barry? If any of what you have said here is actually true, it is only unconsciously so; I did not set out--as far as I know--to get a following. But that does not mean that you are wrong. You may very well have diagnosed me perfectly--but I doubt it. Thanks anyway, Barry; but I really don't see how I can do anything more than just say: I will think hard about all that you have said to me, but it will be very hard to accept that it is true. Please give my best to Curtis. Robin --- turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Dear Robin, For some reason, possibly the result of reading about compassion and deciding to subject myself to one of your rants *out* of compassion, I actually read the post below. Taking you at your word in this rant and in others, about your willingness to see yourself from points of view other than your own, I'm curious as to how you'll react to a few unrequested observations: 1. As many have pointed out, how does this letter to Raunchy *not* fit into the category of trolling for TMers in hopes of still attracting adoration, if not actual followers? Who else would CARE about what you felt and continue to feel for Maharishi? 2. Also as many have pointed out, for all your claims of challenging past assumptions, there seems to be one that you have never challenged, and continue to assert (again, only to TMers, the only group for which this claim would have any caveat or meaning) -- that you were once in Unity Consciousness as defined by MMY. Have you *ever* entertained the notion that you were just experiencing a bout of psychosis that you *interpreted* as a state that would be pleasing to the guy you had a man-crush on (Maharishi)? 3. Also, have you ever considered the possibility that all of the flashy experiences you attribute to having in Maharishi's presence are simply the result *OF* having a rather severe man-crush on him? This is a question that anyone reading that you have spent the last 25 years of your life living with a guy who seems to have a similar man-crush on you might ask. Just sayin'... 4. Have you ever pondered the *extraordinary* ramifications of stating that my perception of a matter concerning myself was incorrect happened for the *first* time in your life at a rather advanced age? That statement is pretty much a self-diagnosis of a person whose entire life to that point had been spent under the influence of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I would assert that no one *not* suffering from NPD could have possibly reached such an age without encountering a few things about himself or herself that they'd been incorrect about. 5. Have you ever considered the possibility that one of the reasons you still claim to hold Maharishi to be so important and so powerful is that you're still trying to butter up the only possible audience for your narcissistic ramblings about yourself and your borrowed philosophy -- TMers or former TMers? 6. Have you ever considered the possibility that you *projected* onto him all of the experiences you claim came *from* Maharishi, and that one of the reasons you did this is just to avoid dealing with the possibility that you had an enormous man-crush on him? You admit that the love you felt for him was the highest love you'd ever experienced
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@... wrote: But that does not mean that you are wrong. You may very well have diagnosed me perfectly--but I doubt it. Robin, it's these kind of statements that worry me. You sometimes imply that you 'were' enlightened and sometimes you imply that you were passing yourself as enlightened. Sometimes the contradictions come in the same sentence or paragraph. Hey, Jason--and anyone else who finds themselves occasionally befuddled by Robin's irony--here's a surefire way to tell whether he's using irony: If he says or implies that he might not have been enlightened, was never enlightened, or was only pretending to be enlightened, he's being ironic. Oh, and if he says or implies that he's *still* enlightened, he's also being ironic.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: lamb to the slaughter You are either getting very subtle here Share or I am becoming stupid. But what does this refer to? Jason, time to round up all those fierce warriors of yours... Why, what for? Oh dear, I need an explanation. Should I be ducking and running for cover? From: Jason jedi_spock@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:33 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits  But that does not mean that you are wrong. You may very well have diagnosed me perfectly--but I doubt it. Robin, it's these kind of statements that worry me. You sometimes imply that you 'were' enlightened and sometimes you imply that you were passing yourself as enlightened. Sometimes the contradictions come in the same sentence or paragraph. I seriously doubt if it's possible for anyone to get enlightened by this love for another man, even if it happens to be Maharishi. --- Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Dear Barry, I think, contrary to what I would have expected, you have raised some significant points here. I am not sure how I would go about answering you. I have had, up until reading your post today, a certain way of seeing myself and the world. Perhaps in some sense, that has been altered by reading--three times now--your post. I don't think, though, it is fair to expect me to respond in full--I mean immediately. There is a lot to digest here--not to mention allow myself to even think might be true. I just don't believe you have a right to criticize me like this. Why should I accept the judgment of someone who has never met me? You have never been friendly towards me; why should I believe you have anything to tell me, Barry? If any of what you have said here is actually true, it is only unconsciously so; I did not set out--as far as I know--to get a following. But that does not mean that you are wrong. You may very well have diagnosed me perfectly--but I doubt it. Thanks anyway, Barry; but I really don't see how I can do anything more than just say: I will think hard about all that you have said to me, but it will be very hard to accept that it is true. Please give my best to Curtis. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Dear Robin, For some reason, possibly the result of reading about compassion and deciding to subject myself to one of your rants *out* of compassion, I actually read the post below. Taking you at your word in this rant and in others, about your willingness to see yourself from points of view other than your own, I'm curious as to how you'll react to a few unrequested observations: 1. As many have pointed out, how does this letter to Raunchy *not* fit into the category of trolling for TMers in hopes of still attracting adoration, if not actual followers? Who else would CARE about what you felt and continue to feel for Maharishi? 2. Also as many have pointed out, for all your claims of challenging past assumptions, there seems to be one that you have never challenged, and continue to assert (again, only to TMers, the only group for which this claim would have any caveat or meaning) -- that you were once in Unity Consciousness as defined by MMY. Have you *ever* entertained the notion that you were just experiencing a bout of psychosis that you *interpreted* as a state that would be pleasing to the guy you had a man-crush on (Maharishi)? 3. Also, have you ever considered the possibility that all of the flashy experiences you attribute to having in Maharishi's presence are simply the result *OF* having a rather severe man-crush on him? This is a question that anyone reading that you have spent the last 25 years of your life living with a guy who seems to have a similar man-crush on you might ask. Just sayin'... 4. Have you ever pondered the *extraordinary* ramifications of stating that my perception of a matter concerning myself was incorrect happened for the *first* time in your life at a rather advanced age? That statement is pretty much a self-diagnosis of a person whose entire life to that point had been spent under the influence of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I would assert that no one *not* suffering from NPD could have possibly reached such an age without encountering a few things about himself or herself that they'd been incorrect about. 5. Have you ever considered the possibility that one of the reasons you still claim to hold Maharishi to be so important and so powerful is that you're still trying to butter up the only possible audience for your narcissistic ramblings about yourself and your borrowed philosophy -- TMers or former
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oxcart49 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: lamb to the slaughter You are either getting very subtle here Share or I am becoming stupid. But what does this refer to? Jason, time to round up all those fierce warriors of yours... Why, what for? Oh dear, I need an explanation. Should I be ducking and running for cover? oxcart, you're asking Share to be explicit in her putdowns-- you know, to be open and *authentic* in her hostility. I don't think you're going to get very far with her on that. For her, it would be as if she had to gaze into someone's eyes, and we know she doesn't like to do that. From: Jason jedi_spock@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:33 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits  But that does not mean that you are wrong. You may very well have diagnosed me perfectly--but I doubt it. Robin, it's these kind of statements that worry me. You sometimes imply that you 'were' enlightened and sometimes you imply that you were passing yourself as enlightened. Sometimes the contradictions come in the same sentence or paragraph. I seriously doubt if it's possible for anyone to get enlightened by this love for another man, even if it happens to be Maharishi. --- Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Dear Barry, I think, contrary to what I would have expected, you have raised some significant points here. I am not sure how I would go about answering you. I have had, up until reading your post today, a certain way of seeing myself and the world. Perhaps in some sense, that has been altered by reading--three times now--your post. I don't think, though, it is fair to expect me to respond in full--I mean immediately. There is a lot to digest here--not to mention allow myself to even think might be true. I just don't believe you have a right to criticize me like this. Why should I accept the judgment of someone who has never met me? You have never been friendly towards me; why should I believe you have anything to tell me, Barry? If any of what you have said here is actually true, it is only unconsciously so; I did not set out--as far as I know--to get a following. But that does not mean that you are wrong. You may very well have diagnosed me perfectly--but I doubt it. Thanks anyway, Barry; but I really don't see how I can do anything more than just say: I will think hard about all that you have said to me, but it will be very hard to accept that it is true. Please give my best to Curtis. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Dear Robin, For some reason, possibly the result of reading about compassion and deciding to subject myself to one of your rants *out* of compassion, I actually read the post below. Taking you at your word in this rant and in others, about your willingness to see yourself from points of view other than your own, I'm curious as to how you'll react to a few unrequested observations: 1. As many have pointed out, how does this letter to Raunchy *not* fit into the category of trolling for TMers in hopes of still attracting adoration, if not actual followers? Who else would CARE about what you felt and continue to feel for Maharishi? 2. Also as many have pointed out, for all your claims of challenging past assumptions, there seems to be one that you have never challenged, and continue to assert (again, only to TMers, the only group for which this claim would have any caveat or meaning) -- that you were once in Unity Consciousness as defined by MMY. Have you *ever* entertained the notion that you were just experiencing a bout of psychosis that you *interpreted* as a state that would be pleasing to the guy you had a man-crush on (Maharishi)? 3. Also, have you ever considered the possibility that all of the flashy experiences you attribute to having in Maharishi's presence are simply the result *OF* having a rather severe man-crush on him? This is a question that anyone reading that you have spent the last 25 years of your life living with a guy who seems to have a similar man-crush on you might ask. Just sayin'... 4. Have you ever pondered the *extraordinary* ramifications of stating that my perception of a matter concerning myself was incorrect happened for the *first* time in your life at a rather advanced age? That statement is pretty much a self-diagnosis of a person whose entire life to that point had been spent under the influence of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I would assert that no one *not* suffering from NPD could have
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
Ha ha ha. That's pretty funny actually. From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 7:48 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@... wrote: But that does not mean that you are wrong. You may very well have diagnosed me perfectly--but I doubt it. Robin, it's these kind of statements that worry me. You sometimes imply that you 'were' enlightened and sometimes you imply that you were passing yourself as enlightened. Sometimes the contradictions come in the same sentence or paragraph. Hey, Jason--and anyone else who finds themselves occasionally befuddled by Robin's irony--here's a surefire way to tell whether he's using irony: If he says or implies that he might not have been enlightened, was never enlightened, or was only pretending to be enlightened, he's being ironic. Oh, and if he says or implies that he's *still* enlightened, he's also being ironic.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: Ha ha ha. That's pretty funny actually. So simple when you know the secret code. ;-) Glad to see you back, Emily, missed you a whole lot. From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 7:48 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: But that does not mean that you are wrong. You may very well have diagnosed me perfectly--but I doubt it. Robin, it's these kind of statements that worry me. You sometimes imply that you 'were' enlightened and sometimes you imply that you were passing yourself as enlightened. Sometimes the contradictions come in the same sentence or paragraph. Hey, Jason--and anyone else who finds themselves occasionally befuddled by Robin's irony--here's a surefire way to tell whether he's using irony: If he says or implies that he might not have been enlightened, was never enlightened, or was only pretending to be enlightened, he's being ironic. Oh, and if he says or implies that he's *still* enlightened, he's also being ironic.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 1:57 PM, authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: Ha ha ha. That's pretty funny actually. So simple when you know the secret code. ;-) Glad to see you back, Emily, missed you a whole lot. I long suffered being with a person who had no understanding of irony, sarcasm, playfulness. IMHO - It just shows a lack of intelligence and emotional maturity, living in a highly fantasized world - Barry, Jason, Steve, Xeno, et al - too many idiots on this list. From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 7:48 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: But that does not mean that you are wrong. You may very well have diagnosed me perfectly--but I doubt it. Robin, it's these kind of statements that worry me. You sometimes imply that you 'were' enlightened and sometimes you imply that you were passing yourself as enlightened. Sometimes the contradictions come in the same sentence or paragraph. Hey, Jason--and anyone else who finds themselves occasionally befuddled by Robin's irony--here's a surefire way to tell whether he's using irony: If he says or implies that he might not have been enlightened, was never enlightened, or was only pretending to be enlightened, he's being ironic. Oh, and if he says or implies that he's *still* enlightened, he's also being ironic.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
My sense of humor has actually returned and expanded since spending time on FFL. In part, I think because of the fact that the internet provides a buffer and allows for more objective review or subjective perception without the other person in the room to influence the space. It allows for all kinds of creative interpretation. And, because there is actually an amazing amount of funny and perceptive stuff here for the reverent and the irreverent alike. I've thought a lot about what Curtis said to me re: it seeming like FFL is here to amuse me (paraphrased). I hate to be brutally honest, but in fact, I did start laughing again after a good several years of being *very serious* and I must say, life is nicer this way. I laugh mostly in the context of life or predicaments or the human condition though and not in a mean, shaming or school-yard way. Sometimes it takes me awhile, but I don't sweat the small stuff nearly as much as I used to. Miss you Curtis. In your absence, I will be posting a list of your motivations for departure shortly. Alright, bad joke. We're cool. I'm going to try that recipe for eggplant; the fact that it has pecorino in it is intriguing. From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 2:05 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 1:57 PM, authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: Ha ha ha. That's pretty funny actually. So simple when you know the secret code. ;-) Glad to see you back, Emily, missed you a whole lot. I long suffered being with a person who had no understanding of irony, sarcasm, playfulness. IMHO - It just shows a lack of intelligence and emotional maturity, living in a highly fantasized world - Barry, Jason, Steve, Xeno, et al - too many idiots on this list. From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 7:48 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@ wrote: But that does not mean that you are wrong. You may very well have diagnosed me perfectly--but I doubt it. Robin, it's these kind of statements that worry me. You sometimes imply that you 'were' enlightened and sometimes you imply that you were passing yourself as enlightened. Sometimes the contradictions come in the same sentence or paragraph. Hey, Jason--and anyone else who finds themselves occasionally befuddled by Robin's irony--here's a surefire way to tell whether he's using irony: If he says or implies that he might not have been enlightened, was never enlightened, or was only pretending to be enlightened, he's being ironic. Oh, and if he says or implies that he's *still* enlightened, he's also being ironic.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: snip Taking you at your word in this rant Robin's post to raunchy was in no way a rant. and in others, about your willingness to see yourself from points of view other than your own, I'm curious as to how you'll react to a few unrequested observations: The problem with these unrequested observations is that they don't appear to have much of anything to do with the post Barry claims generated them, or with Robin's FFL posts generally (which Barry doesn't read). Robin has dealt with the conceptual errors in Barry's post; let's do a little fisking of Barry's illogic and factual errors for the record: 1. As many have pointed out, how does this letter to Raunchy *not* fit into the category of trolling for TMers in hopes of still attracting adoration, if not actual followers? Who else would CARE about what you felt and continue to feel for Maharishi? This is just a silly failure of logic, given the membership of this forum. It would mean the only people Robin could write to about his feelings for Maharishi without its fitting the category of trolling for TMers would be Emily and Ravi. Plus which, of course, everybody can read all the posts anyway. How about Marek and raunchy, who both expressed very positive feelings for Maharishi--were they trolling for TMers? Lots of people have done that here. Chop-logic. 2. Also as many have pointed out, for all your claims of challenging past assumptions, there seems to be one that you have never challenged, and continue to assert (again, only to TMers, Wrong. He's asserted it to Emily, to Ravi, and to many of the former TMers here. But then Barry doesn't read Robin's posts, so how would he know this? the only group for which this claim would have any caveat or meaning) -- that you were once in Unity Consciousness as defined by MMY. Have you *ever* entertained the notion that you were just experiencing a bout of psychosis that you *interpreted* as a state that would be pleasing to the guy you had a man-crush on (Maharishi)? For ten years? And has Barry ever read Robin's account of the dawning of his Unity Consciousness at Arosa? 3. Also, have you ever considered the possibility that all of the flashy experiences you attribute to having in Maharishi's presence are simply the result *OF* having a rather severe man-crush on him? This is a question that anyone reading that you have spent the last 25 years of your life living with a guy who seems to have a similar man-crush on you might ask. Just sayin'... It would be very difficult to find anything in what Robin wrote to indicate that his friend has a man-crush on him. And even if that were the case, what would that have to do with the speculation that Robin's flashy experiences in MMY's presence were generated by a man-crush? That's not even bad logic; it's a complete non sequitur. 4. Have you ever pondered the *extraordinary* ramifications of stating that my perception of a matter concerning myself was incorrect happened for the *first* time in your life at a rather advanced age? Ooopsie, that isn't quite what Robin wrote: The real turning point, however, raunchy, came when my best friend (although he was not at this time) demonstrated to me that my perception of a matter concerning myself was incorrect, and that his perception of me was the objective one. I had never experienced anything like this in my life: someone proving they knew me better than I knew myself. That statement is pretty much a self-diagnosis of a person whose entire life to that point had been spent under the influence of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I would assert that no one *not* suffering from NPD could have possibly reached such an age without encountering a few things about himself or herself that they'd been incorrect about. Knew me better than I knew myself goes considerably beyond encountering a few things about himself or herself that they'd been incorrect about. I'd suggest very few people ever experience the former. 5. Have you ever considered the possibility that one of the reasons you still claim to hold Maharishi to be so important and so powerful is that you're still trying to butter up the only possible audience for your narcissistic ramblings about yourself and your borrowed philosophy -- TMers or former TMers? His philosophy is his own, not borrowed, first of all, as Barry would know if he'd been reading Robin's posts. Second, given that he has concluded Maharishi was fundamentally a fraud-- Objectively, I have have been forced to conclude that Maharishi did not possess either the personal or even impersonal integrity to justify what he claimed to be and what he claimed as his purpose in this life. --how would this butter up TMers? TM critics, maybe. It's always puzzled me that the most vocal TM critics on this forum are also Robin's most vocal critics. You'd think they'd be eager to make
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
Logic and analysis can be beautiful, crystalline and pure. When it is thus, there is a kind of gorgeousness manifest, a cleansing akin to what happens to the air after a thunderstorm accompanied by a downpour. It is what is often missing when communication is muddied with circuitous argument, shoot-from-the-hip assertion and downright ill-intentioned accusation. When I read this just now it struck me that Judy was cleaning something up, setting things to rights. That is what clear thinking can do. It is not motivated by self-serving subjectivity but by the need, the desire to get it right, to make it clean. Don't mind me, maybe it is just the chocolate sunday (that I am eating at this moment) talking. But it sure feels true right now. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: snip Taking you at your word in this rant Robin's post to raunchy was in no way a rant. and in others, about your willingness to see yourself from points of view other than your own, I'm curious as to how you'll react to a few unrequested observations: The problem with these unrequested observations is that they don't appear to have much of anything to do with the post Barry claims generated them, or with Robin's FFL posts generally (which Barry doesn't read). Robin has dealt with the conceptual errors in Barry's post; let's do a little fisking of Barry's illogic and factual errors for the record: 1. As many have pointed out, how does this letter to Raunchy *not* fit into the category of trolling for TMers in hopes of still attracting adoration, if not actual followers? Who else would CARE about what you felt and continue to feel for Maharishi? This is just a silly failure of logic, given the membership of this forum. It would mean the only people Robin could write to about his feelings for Maharishi without its fitting the category of trolling for TMers would be Emily and Ravi. Plus which, of course, everybody can read all the posts anyway. How about Marek and raunchy, who both expressed very positive feelings for Maharishi--were they trolling for TMers? Lots of people have done that here. Chop-logic. 2. Also as many have pointed out, for all your claims of challenging past assumptions, there seems to be one that you have never challenged, and continue to assert (again, only to TMers, Wrong. He's asserted it to Emily, to Ravi, and to many of the former TMers here. But then Barry doesn't read Robin's posts, so how would he know this? the only group for which this claim would have any caveat or meaning) -- that you were once in Unity Consciousness as defined by MMY. Have you *ever* entertained the notion that you were just experiencing a bout of psychosis that you *interpreted* as a state that would be pleasing to the guy you had a man-crush on (Maharishi)? For ten years? And has Barry ever read Robin's account of the dawning of his Unity Consciousness at Arosa? 3. Also, have you ever considered the possibility that all of the flashy experiences you attribute to having in Maharishi's presence are simply the result *OF* having a rather severe man-crush on him? This is a question that anyone reading that you have spent the last 25 years of your life living with a guy who seems to have a similar man-crush on you might ask. Just sayin'... It would be very difficult to find anything in what Robin wrote to indicate that his friend has a man-crush on him. And even if that were the case, what would that have to do with the speculation that Robin's flashy experiences in MMY's presence were generated by a man-crush? That's not even bad logic; it's a complete non sequitur. 4. Have you ever pondered the *extraordinary* ramifications of stating that my perception of a matter concerning myself was incorrect happened for the *first* time in your life at a rather advanced age? Ooopsie, that isn't quite what Robin wrote: The real turning point, however, raunchy, came when my best friend (although he was not at this time) demonstrated to me that my perception of a matter concerning myself was incorrect, and that his perception of me was the objective one. I had never experienced anything like this in my life: someone proving they knew me better than I knew myself. That statement is pretty much a self-diagnosis of a person whose entire life to that point had been spent under the influence of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I would assert that no one *not* suffering from NPD could have possibly reached such an age without encountering a few things about himself or herself that they'd been incorrect about. Knew me better than I knew myself goes considerably beyond encountering a few things about himself or herself that they'd been incorrect about. I'd suggest very few people ever experience the
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
Awesome dear Ann, I have to say I enjoyed Judy's analysis too - it was really beautiful, like you say clear intellectual poetry - how she picked King Baby Barry apart. On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 9:35 PM, awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: ** Logic and analysis can be beautiful, crystalline and pure. When it is thus, there is a kind of gorgeousness manifest, a cleansing akin to what happens to the air after a thunderstorm accompanied by a downpour. It is what is often missing when communication is muddied with circuitous argument, shoot-from-the-hip assertion and downright ill-intentioned accusation. When I read this just now it struck me that Judy was cleaning something up, setting things to rights. That is what clear thinking can do. It is not motivated by self-serving subjectivity but by the need, the desire to get it right, to make it clean. Don't mind me, maybe it is just the chocolate sunday (that I am eating at this moment) talking. But it sure feels true right now. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: snip Taking you at your word in this rant Robin's post to raunchy was in no way a rant. and in others, about your willingness to see yourself from points of view other than your own, I'm curious as to how you'll react to a few unrequested observations: The problem with these unrequested observations is that they don't appear to have much of anything to do with the post Barry claims generated them, or with Robin's FFL posts generally (which Barry doesn't read). Robin has dealt with the conceptual errors in Barry's post; let's do a little fisking of Barry's illogic and factual errors for the record: 1. As many have pointed out, how does this letter to Raunchy *not* fit into the category of trolling for TMers in hopes of still attracting adoration, if not actual followers? Who else would CARE about what you felt and continue to feel for Maharishi? This is just a silly failure of logic, given the membership of this forum. It would mean the only people Robin could write to about his feelings for Maharishi without its fitting the category of trolling for TMers would be Emily and Ravi. Plus which, of course, everybody can read all the posts anyway. How about Marek and raunchy, who both expressed very positive feelings for Maharishi--were they trolling for TMers? Lots of people have done that here. Chop-logic. 2. Also as many have pointed out, for all your claims of challenging past assumptions, there seems to be one that you have never challenged, and continue to assert (again, only to TMers, Wrong. He's asserted it to Emily, to Ravi, and to many of the former TMers here. But then Barry doesn't read Robin's posts, so how would he know this? the only group for which this claim would have any caveat or meaning) -- that you were once in Unity Consciousness as defined by MMY. Have you *ever* entertained the notion that you were just experiencing a bout of psychosis that you *interpreted* as a state that would be pleasing to the guy you had a man-crush on (Maharishi)? For ten years? And has Barry ever read Robin's account of the dawning of his Unity Consciousness at Arosa? 3. Also, have you ever considered the possibility that all of the flashy experiences you attribute to having in Maharishi's presence are simply the result *OF* having a rather severe man-crush on him? This is a question that anyone reading that you have spent the last 25 years of your life living with a guy who seems to have a similar man-crush on you might ask. Just sayin'... It would be very difficult to find anything in what Robin wrote to indicate that his friend has a man-crush on him. And even if that were the case, what would that have to do with the speculation that Robin's flashy experiences in MMY's presence were generated by a man-crush? That's not even bad logic; it's a complete non sequitur. 4. Have you ever pondered the *extraordinary* ramifications of stating that my perception of a matter concerning myself was incorrect happened for the *first* time in your life at a rather advanced age? Ooopsie, that isn't quite what Robin wrote: The real turning point, however, raunchy, came when my best friend (although he was not at this time) demonstrated to me that my perception of a matter concerning myself was incorrect, and that his perception of me was the objective one. I had never experienced anything like this in my life: someone proving they knew me better than I knew myself. That statement is pretty much a self-diagnosis of a person whose entire life to that point had been spent under the influence of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I would assert that no one *not* suffering from NPD could
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
Dear Robin, For some reason, possibly the result of reading about compassion and deciding to subject myself to one of your rants *out* of compassion, I actually read the post below. Taking you at your word in this rant and in others, about your willingness to see yourself from points of view other than your own, I'm curious as to how you'll react to a few unrequested observations: 1. As many have pointed out, how does this letter to Raunchy *not* fit into the category of trolling for TMers in hopes of still attracting adoration, if not actual followers? Who else would CARE about what you felt and continue to feel for Maharishi? 2. Also as many have pointed out, for all your claims of challenging past assumptions, there seems to be one that you have never challenged, and continue to assert (again, only to TMers, the only group for which this claim would have any caveat or meaning) -- that you were once in Unity Consciousness as defined by MMY. Have you *ever* entertained the notion that you were just experiencing a bout of psychosis that you *interpreted* as a state that would be pleasing to the guy you had a man-crush on (Maharishi)? 3. Also, have you ever considered the possibility that all of the flashy experiences you attribute to having in Maharishi's presence are simply the result *OF* having a rather severe man-crush on him? This is a question that anyone reading that you have spent the last 25 years of your life living with a guy who seems to have a similar man-crush on you might ask. Just sayin'... 4. Have you ever pondered the *extraordinary* ramifications of stating that my perception of a matter concerning myself was incorrect happened for the *first* time in your life at a rather advanced age? That statement is pretty much a self-diagnosis of a person whose entire life to that point had been spent under the influence of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I would assert that no one *not* suffering from NPD could have possibly reached such an age without encountering a few things about himself or herself that they'd been incorrect about. 5. Have you ever considered the possibility that one of the reasons you still claim to hold Maharishi to be so important and so powerful is that you're still trying to butter up the only possible audience for your narcissistic ramblings about yourself and your borrowed philosophy -- TMers or former TMers? 6. Have you ever considered the possibility that you *projected* onto him all of the experiences you claim came *from* Maharishi, and that one of the reasons you did this is just to avoid dealing with the possibility that you had an enormous man-crush on him? You admit that the love you felt for him was the highest love you'd ever experienced, but don't seem to deal with the ramifications of that. What's up with that? Are you saying that your love for him was higher than your love for your wife? Adoring a holy man to that degree is OK, but adoring just another man isn't? I'm penning these questions NOT because I'm seeking to discuss or argue them with you. Don't embarrass yourself by pretending that I've entered into one of your confrontations and must do battle with you. That isn't going to happen, so don't get your hopes up. :-) I'm just passing them along to see if you are capable of realizing that there are other ways of seeing you and your story than the ways you see it...and, dare I say it...want to see it. My original impression of you remains intact -- I see *no change* in your behavior as reported back in the day and your behavior today. It's still the same syndrome of trolling for followers by first praising the guy *they* have a crush on too (MMY), and then asserting your superiority to him. All of which falls completely within the diagnosis of someone struggling with lifelong Narcissistic Personality Disorder. None of this is a lie on my part, or in any way intended as an attempt to get you. This is how I really see you. Live with it. If others are impressed by your stories, that is their business. I just thought it might be interesting for you to hear from someone who isn't. That's all. Do with the feedback what you will. I'm outa here... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: Dear raunchydog, I had plenty of the elegantly styled Giorgio Armani when I was in Unity Consciousness, raunchy. The spell I was under was so powerful and convincing: I was unconquerable and undefeatable in every sense because of what Maharishi had bestowed upon me on that mountain--this is how I interpreted my experience of becoming enlightened; that it was through Maharishi's grace that this was happening to me. I felt, quite apart from the practising of TM (and extras), that my devotion to Maharishi was the critical element in this gratuitous transformation of my consciousness and person. Once I turned towards Catholicism (nearly ten years after Arosa) my enlightenment became problematic--metaphysically: it was not a
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
Running my own text through the Synopsizer I and others have often wished you would employ :-), I think I can come up with a much more concise view of my thesis: It seems to me that another way of viewing the Robin Carlsen Story is as the multi-decade reaction of one man to having been rejected by the guy he had a man-crush on. IMO that description characterizes your adventures and misadventures as well as any other. I'm not saying that it's the *only* way to view your story, or the correct way. I'm just stating that it's a valid way of viewing it, and far more Occam's Razor-like than your own. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Dear Robin, For some reason, possibly the result of reading about compassion and deciding to subject myself to one of your rants *out* of compassion, I actually read the post below. Taking you at your word in this rant and in others, about your willingness to see yourself from points of view other than your own, I'm curious as to how you'll react to a few unrequested observations: 1. As many have pointed out, how does this letter to Raunchy *not* fit into the category of trolling for TMers in hopes of still attracting adoration, if not actual followers? Who else would CARE about what you felt and continue to feel for Maharishi? 2. Also as many have pointed out, for all your claims of challenging past assumptions, there seems to be one that you have never challenged, and continue to assert (again, only to TMers, the only group for which this claim would have any caveat or meaning) -- that you were once in Unity Consciousness as defined by MMY. Have you *ever* entertained the notion that you were just experiencing a bout of psychosis that you *interpreted* as a state that would be pleasing to the guy you had a man-crush on (Maharishi)? 3. Also, have you ever considered the possibility that all of the flashy experiences you attribute to having in Maharishi's presence are simply the result *OF* having a rather severe man-crush on him? This is a question that anyone reading that you have spent the last 25 years of your life living with a guy who seems to have a similar man-crush on you might ask. Just sayin'... 4. Have you ever pondered the *extraordinary* ramifications of stating that my perception of a matter concerning myself was incorrect happened for the *first* time in your life at a rather advanced age? That statement is pretty much a self-diagnosis of a person whose entire life to that point had been spent under the influence of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I would assert that no one *not* suffering from NPD could have possibly reached such an age without encountering a few things about himself or herself that they'd been incorrect about. 5. Have you ever considered the possibility that one of the reasons you still claim to hold Maharishi to be so important and so powerful is that you're still trying to butter up the only possible audience for your narcissistic ramblings about yourself and your borrowed philosophy -- TMers or former TMers? 6. Have you ever considered the possibility that you *projected* onto him all of the experiences you claim came *from* Maharishi, and that one of the reasons you did this is just to avoid dealing with the possibility that you had an enormous man-crush on him? You admit that the love you felt for him was the highest love you'd ever experienced, but don't seem to deal with the ramifications of that. What's up with that? Are you saying that your love for him was higher than your love for your wife? Adoring a holy man to that degree is OK, but adoring just another man isn't? I'm penning these questions NOT because I'm seeking to discuss or argue them with you. Don't embarrass yourself by pretending that I've entered into one of your confrontations and must do battle with you. That isn't going to happen, so don't get your hopes up. :-) I'm just passing them along to see if you are capable of realizing that there are other ways of seeing you and your story than the ways you see it...and, dare I say it...want to see it. My original impression of you remains intact -- I see *no change* in your behavior as reported back in the day and your behavior today. It's still the same syndrome of trolling for followers by first praising the guy *they* have a crush on too (MMY), and then asserting your superiority to him. All of which falls completely within the diagnosis of someone struggling with lifelong Narcissistic Personality Disorder. None of this is a lie on my part, or in any way intended as an attempt to get you. This is how I really see you. Live with it. If others are impressed by your stories, that is their business. I just thought it might be interesting for you to hear from someone who isn't. That's all. Do with the feedback what you will. I'm outa here... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oxcart49 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: I have decided that Maharishi was more seductive and entrancing and enthralling than the most beautiful woman in the world--the spiritual substituting here for the erotic. And yet for all that, I believe Maharishi was a lie. But I would be maybe 40% of the person I am now had I not known and devoted myself to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and his Teachings. And he allowed us to have the opportunity to initiate someone into TM: no one but an initiator in the early seventies can know what that was like. No one since Saint Peter has known what the experience was like to be around Maharishi. Christ took Peter away from his fishing; Maharishi took us away from psychedelics. It is a story that has hardly begun to be told. Oh well... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8RhZDGLEXM What exactly does that mean Khazana? Are you an empathetic being 108? I am interested to know. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC2gZMNkyJo
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: That's all. Do with the feedback what you will. I'm outa here... Out for a beer and rejoysing in the thought of your favorite politician, the Dolly Lama soon coming to Holland ?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
FWIW, I sense that a lot of souls chose to incarnate during this extraordinary time when it would be RELATIVELY easy to become realized, whatever the heck that means! These souls chose to incarnate and get on a spiritual path even though they knew that they would have huge karmic debts to repay in the process. For myself it is a huge karmic debt I have to repay concerning abandonment. Others have other debts and compassion, or what the Buddhists call lovingkindness, seems to be the perfect universal solvent for this extraordinary time and these brave souls. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 3:51 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits Running my own text through the Synopsizer I and others have often wished you would employ :-), I think I can come up with a much more concise view of my thesis: It seems to me that another way of viewing the Robin Carlsen Story is as the multi-decade reaction of one man to having been rejected by the guy he had a man-crush on. IMO that description characterizes your adventures and misadventures as well as any other. I'm not saying that it's the *only* way to view your story, or the correct way. I'm just stating that it's a valid way of viewing it, and far more Occam's Razor-like than your own. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Dear Robin, For some reason, possibly the result of reading about compassion and deciding to subject myself to one of your rants *out* of compassion, I actually read the post below. Taking you at your word in this rant and in others, about your willingness to see yourself from points of view other than your own, I'm curious as to how you'll react to a few unrequested observations: 1. As many have pointed out, how does this letter to Raunchy *not* fit into the category of trolling for TMers in hopes of still attracting adoration, if not actual followers? Who else would CARE about what you felt and continue to feel for Maharishi? 2. Also as many have pointed out, for all your claims of challenging past assumptions, there seems to be one that you have never challenged, and continue to assert (again, only to TMers, the only group for which this claim would have any caveat or meaning) -- that you were once in Unity Consciousness as defined by MMY. Have you *ever* entertained the notion that you were just experiencing a bout of psychosis that you *interpreted* as a state that would be pleasing to the guy you had a man-crush on (Maharishi)? 3. Also, have you ever considered the possibility that all of the flashy experiences you attribute to having in Maharishi's presence are simply the result *OF* having a rather severe man-crush on him? This is a question that anyone reading that you have spent the last 25 years of your life living with a guy who seems to have a similar man-crush on you might ask. Just sayin'... 4. Have you ever pondered the *extraordinary* ramifications of stating that my perception of a matter concerning myself was incorrect happened for the *first* time in your life at a rather advanced age? That statement is pretty much a self-diagnosis of a person whose entire life to that point had been spent under the influence of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I would assert that no one *not* suffering from NPD could have possibly reached such an age without encountering a few things about himself or herself that they'd been incorrect about. 5. Have you ever considered the possibility that one of the reasons you still claim to hold Maharishi to be so important and so powerful is that you're still trying to butter up the only possible audience for your narcissistic ramblings about yourself and your borrowed philosophy -- TMers or former TMers? 6. Have you ever considered the possibility that you *projected* onto him all of the experiences you claim came *from* Maharishi, and that one of the reasons you did this is just to avoid dealing with the possibility that you had an enormous man-crush on him? You admit that the love you felt for him was the highest love you'd ever experienced, but don't seem to deal with the ramifications of that. What's up with that? Are you saying that your love for him was higher than your love for your wife? Adoring a holy man to that degree is OK, but adoring just another man isn't? I'm penning these questions NOT because I'm seeking to discuss or argue them with you. Don't embarrass yourself by pretending that I've entered into one of your confrontations and must do battle with you. That isn't going to happen, so don't get your hopes up. :-) I'm just passing them along to see if you are capable of realizing that there are other ways of seeing you and your story than the ways you see it...and, dare I say it...want to see it. My original impression of you remains
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
Dear Barry, I think, contrary to what I would have expected, you have raised some significant points here. I am not sure how I would go about answering you. I have had, up until reading your post today, a certain way of seeing myself and the world. Perhaps in some sense, that has been altered by reading--three times now--your post. I don't think, though, it is fair to expect me to respond in full--I mean immediately. There is a lot to digest here--not to mention allow myself to even think might be true. I just don't believe you have a right to criticize me like this. Why should I accept the judgment of someone who has never met me? You have never been friendly towards me; why should I believe you have anything to tell me, Barry? If any of what you have said here is actually true, it is only unconsciously so; I did not set out--as far as I know--to get a following. But that does not mean that you are wrong. You may very well have diagnosed me perfectly--but I doubt it. Thanks anyway, Barry; but I really don't see how I can do anything more than just say: I will think hard about all that you have said to me, but it will be very hard to accept that it is true. Please give my best to Curtis. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Dear Robin, For some reason, possibly the result of reading about compassion and deciding to subject myself to one of your rants *out* of compassion, I actually read the post below. Taking you at your word in this rant and in others, about your willingness to see yourself from points of view other than your own, I'm curious as to how you'll react to a few unrequested observations: 1. As many have pointed out, how does this letter to Raunchy *not* fit into the category of trolling for TMers in hopes of still attracting adoration, if not actual followers? Who else would CARE about what you felt and continue to feel for Maharishi? 2. Also as many have pointed out, for all your claims of challenging past assumptions, there seems to be one that you have never challenged, and continue to assert (again, only to TMers, the only group for which this claim would have any caveat or meaning) -- that you were once in Unity Consciousness as defined by MMY. Have you *ever* entertained the notion that you were just experiencing a bout of psychosis that you *interpreted* as a state that would be pleasing to the guy you had a man-crush on (Maharishi)? 3. Also, have you ever considered the possibility that all of the flashy experiences you attribute to having in Maharishi's presence are simply the result *OF* having a rather severe man-crush on him? This is a question that anyone reading that you have spent the last 25 years of your life living with a guy who seems to have a similar man-crush on you might ask. Just sayin'... 4. Have you ever pondered the *extraordinary* ramifications of stating that my perception of a matter concerning myself was incorrect happened for the *first* time in your life at a rather advanced age? That statement is pretty much a self-diagnosis of a person whose entire life to that point had been spent under the influence of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I would assert that no one *not* suffering from NPD could have possibly reached such an age without encountering a few things about himself or herself that they'd been incorrect about. 5. Have you ever considered the possibility that one of the reasons you still claim to hold Maharishi to be so important and so powerful is that you're still trying to butter up the only possible audience for your narcissistic ramblings about yourself and your borrowed philosophy -- TMers or former TMers? 6. Have you ever considered the possibility that you *projected* onto him all of the experiences you claim came *from* Maharishi, and that one of the reasons you did this is just to avoid dealing with the possibility that you had an enormous man-crush on him? You admit that the love you felt for him was the highest love you'd ever experienced, but don't seem to deal with the ramifications of that. What's up with that? Are you saying that your love for him was higher than your love for your wife? Adoring a holy man to that degree is OK, but adoring just another man isn't? I'm penning these questions NOT because I'm seeking to discuss or argue them with you. Don't embarrass yourself by pretending that I've entered into one of your confrontations and must do battle with you. That isn't going to happen, so don't get your hopes up. :-) I'm just passing them along to see if you are capable of realizing that there are other ways of seeing you and your story than the ways you see it...and, dare I say it...want to see it. My original impression of you remains intact -- I see *no change* in your behavior as reported back in the day and your behavior today. It's still the same syndrome of trolling for followers by first
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: That's all. Do with the feedback what you will. I'm outa here... Out for a beer and rejoysing Is that like singing joy redux? in the thought of your favorite politician, the Dolly Lama soon coming to Holland ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: FWIW, I sense that a lot of souls chose to incarnate during this extraordinary time when it would be RELATIVELY easy to become realized, whatever the heck that means! These souls chose to incarnate and get on a spiritual path even though they knew that they would have huge karmic debts to repay in the process. For myself it is a huge karmic debt I have to repay concerning abandonment. Others have other debts and compassion, or what the Buddhists call lovingkindness, seems to be the perfect universal solvent for this extraordinary time and these brave souls. I am lost here. What are you actually referring to Share? Pardon me, but this does not appear to address anything that was written below. Please clarify. And you used the word realized followed by whatever the heck that means. Excuse me again but how could you pretend you don't have some inkling of what to be realized means after so many years of study, practice and continued pursuing of spiritual goals? Or are you just being modest? From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 3:51 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits  Running my own text through the Synopsizer I and others have often wished you would employ :-), I think I can come up with a much more concise view of my thesis: It seems to me that another way of viewing the Robin Carlsen Story is as the multi-decade reaction of one man to having been rejected by the guy he had a man-crush on. IMO that description characterizes your adventures and misadventures as well as any other. I'm not saying that it's the *only* way to view your story, or the correct way. I'm just stating that it's a valid way of viewing it, and far more Occam's Razor-like than your own. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Dear Robin, For some reason, possibly the result of reading about compassion and deciding to subject myself to one of your rants *out* of compassion, I actually read the post below. Taking you at your word in this rant and in others, about your willingness to see yourself from points of view other than your own, I'm curious as to how you'll react to a few unrequested observations: 1. As many have pointed out, how does this letter to Raunchy *not* fit into the category of trolling for TMers in hopes of still attracting adoration, if not actual followers? Who else would CARE about what you felt and continue to feel for Maharishi? 2. Also as many have pointed out, for all your claims of challenging past assumptions, there seems to be one that you have never challenged, and continue to assert (again, only to TMers, the only group for which this claim would have any caveat or meaning) -- that you were once in Unity Consciousness as defined by MMY. Have you *ever* entertained the notion that you were just experiencing a bout of psychosis that you *interpreted* as a state that would be pleasing to the guy you had a man-crush on (Maharishi)? 3. Also, have you ever considered the possibility that all of the flashy experiences you attribute to having in Maharishi's presence are simply the result *OF* having a rather severe man-crush on him? This is a question that anyone reading that you have spent the last 25 years of your life living with a guy who seems to have a similar man-crush on you might ask. Just sayin'... 4. Have you ever pondered the *extraordinary* ramifications of stating that my perception of a matter concerning myself was incorrect happened for the *first* time in your life at a rather advanced age? That statement is pretty much a self-diagnosis of a person whose entire life to that point had been spent under the influence of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I would assert that no one *not* suffering from NPD could have possibly reached such an age without encountering a few things about himself or herself that they'd been incorrect about. 5. Have you ever considered the possibility that one of the reasons you still claim to hold Maharishi to be so important and so powerful is that you're still trying to butter up the only possible audience for your narcissistic ramblings about yourself and your borrowed philosophy -- TMers or former TMers? 6. Have you ever considered the possibility that you *projected* onto him all of the experiences you claim came *from* Maharishi, and that one of the reasons you did this is just to avoid dealing with the possibility that you had an enormous man-crush on him? You admit that the love you felt for him was the highest love you'd ever experienced, but don't seem to deal with the ramifications of that. What's up with that? Are you saying that your love for him was higher
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
Dear Barry, Do not think I have closed off myself to the possibility that you have said some interesting things to me, Barry. If you think I am so stupid not to consider that you might be directing me towards some truth, then *you* are stupid. I am just not that stupid. I think that almost anyone can say something true about oneself. The fact that I can't--at least right now: that could, and I hope, does, change--say anything in my defence perhaps is revealing. What I am now contemplating is: How would I go about arguing against what you have said so as to make it believable to FFL readers that it is *not* true? I mean, there is a certain reaction I could have to what you have told me which would go a long ways towards proving you are probably right about me. Now that is something I want to avoid. As you can imagine. On the other hand, just to, for instance, be ironic, well that would be so predictable that almost every discerning reader would say to herself or himself: Oh, Robin has to resort to *that*, does he? No willingness to face Barry honestly and sincerely? So I must avoid answering you in such a way that I unwittingly make it seem your analysis of me is true. And on the other hand, I must eschew the usual manoeuvre here, which so many will anticipate: some goddam irony again--Robin, that's all we need! So, as I see it, Barry, there are only three other alternatives: 1. Have an experience that most or all of what you have said is *actually* untrue--that is, I feel it does not describe me--and this is at least subjectively true for me to say this--and then respond out of this particular experience. 2. Have an experience that it *is* true--to some extent at least (not all of it could not apply to me; that seems obvious to me)--but use that painful realization to fight hard to make it seem that it could not be true. 3. Have an experience that it is so completely untrue that I do not seriously enter into the proposition of its truthfulness at all--but find some way of responding which implicitly suggests my judgment of the relevance of your analysis is clear, but my method of responding to your post does not entirely make itself known to the reader. I am pondering right now which of these four (actually 5) ways I should go on this. For the time being, then, I am not certain what choice to make here, Barry. Any way you could give some hint which of these possibilities *you* might deem in my evolutionary best interests? I will resolve this matter soon enough, Barry. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Dear Robin, For some reason, possibly the result of reading about compassion and deciding to subject myself to one of your rants *out* of compassion, I actually read the post below. Taking you at your word in this rant and in others, about your willingness to see yourself from points of view other than your own, I'm curious as to how you'll react to a few unrequested observations: 1. As many have pointed out, how does this letter to Raunchy *not* fit into the category of trolling for TMers in hopes of still attracting adoration, if not actual followers? Who else would CARE about what you felt and continue to feel for Maharishi? 2. Also as many have pointed out, for all your claims of challenging past assumptions, there seems to be one that you have never challenged, and continue to assert (again, only to TMers, the only group for which this claim would have any caveat or meaning) -- that you were once in Unity Consciousness as defined by MMY. Have you *ever* entertained the notion that you were just experiencing a bout of psychosis that you *interpreted* as a state that would be pleasing to the guy you had a man-crush on (Maharishi)? 3. Also, have you ever considered the possibility that all of the flashy experiences you attribute to having in Maharishi's presence are simply the result *OF* having a rather severe man-crush on him? This is a question that anyone reading that you have spent the last 25 years of your life living with a guy who seems to have a similar man-crush on you might ask. Just sayin'... 4. Have you ever pondered the *extraordinary* ramifications of stating that my perception of a matter concerning myself was incorrect happened for the *first* time in your life at a rather advanced age? That statement is pretty much a self-diagnosis of a person whose entire life to that point had been spent under the influence of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I would assert that no one *not* suffering from NPD could have possibly reached such an age without encountering a few things about himself or herself that they'd been incorrect about. 5. Have you ever considered the possibility that one of the reasons you still claim to hold Maharishi to be so important and so powerful is that you're still trying to butter up the only possible audience for your narcissistic ramblings
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
Just a couple of small observations here from little old oxcart: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Dear Robin, For some reason, possibly the result of reading about compassion and deciding to subject myself to one of your rants *out* of compassion, I actually read the post below. Yes, what is to follow certainly reads like a very compassionate take on what Robin posted. And I thank you for that Barry, it has given me inspiration for the day. Maybe as a result I will go out and step on a few spiders. Taking you at your word in this rant and in others, about your willingness to see yourself from points of view other than your own, I'm curious as to how you'll react to a few unrequested observations: Barry is so curious he will not stick around to read anything else Robin may write in reply to this post nor will he reply since he won't have read it. If that is being curious then I would be even more curiouser to see what Barry would do if he said he WASN'T curious. 1. As many have pointed out, how does this letter to Raunchy *not* fit into the category of trolling for TMers in hopes of still attracting adoration, if not actual followers? Who else would CARE about what you felt and continue to feel for Maharishi? Well, let's see. Since this place we call FFL is full of current TM practitioners and former meditators the chances of reaching one of these readers with a post is like shooting fish in a barrel. Pretty hard not to do. 2. Also as many have pointed out, for all your claims of challenging past assumptions, there seems to be one that you have never challenged, and continue to assert (again, only to TMers, the only group for which this claim would have any caveat or meaning) -- that you were once in Unity Consciousness as defined by MMY. Have you *ever* entertained the notion that you were just experiencing a bout of psychosis that you *interpreted* as a state that would be pleasing to the guy you had a man-crush on (Maharishi)? Could you define man-crush. Is it anything like orange crush? 3. Also, have you ever considered the possibility that all of the flashy experiences you attribute to having in Maharishi's presence are simply the result *OF* having a rather severe man-crush on him? This is a question that anyone reading that you have spent the last 25 years of your life living with a guy who seems to have a similar man-crush on you might ask. Just sayin'... I would be first in line to ask that very question Barry but I have to know what a man-crush is. So I will leave my question on that very subject you so astutely brought up for later, when I am in the know on the definition. 4. Have you ever pondered the *extraordinary* ramifications of stating that my perception of a matter concerning myself was incorrect happened for the *first* time in your life at a rather advanced age? That statement is pretty much a self-diagnosis of a person whose entire life to that point had been spent under the influence of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I would assert that no one *not* suffering from NPD could have possibly reached such an age without encountering a few things about himself or herself that they'd been incorrect about. Of course he didn't Barry, he is the victim of severe NPD. How could you expect or ask him to accomplish such a thing? Your compassion is lacking here. Now don't bring that subject up again, it is obviously a sore one for Robin and you may set him back a few lifetimes if he senses you are closing in on the truth here. Please, for the sack of a man's sanity Barry, let this one slide. 5. Have you ever considered the possibility that one of the reasons you still claim to hold Maharishi to be so important and so powerful is that you're still trying to butter up the only possible audience for your narcissistic ramblings about yourself and your borrowed philosophy -- TMers or former TMers? I am positive Robin has Buck in mind here for his next disciple. Buck, take note, Robin is after you so be careful. Barry, I think you might be safe, you probably aren't in his first draft pick. 6. Have you ever considered the possibility that you *projected* onto him all of the experiences you claim came *from* Maharishi, and that one of the reasons you did this is just to avoid dealing with the possibility that you had an enormous man-crush on him? You admit that the love you felt for him was the highest love you'd ever experienced, but don't seem to deal with the ramifications of that. What's up with that? Are you saying that your love for him was higher than your love for your wife? Adoring a holy man to that degree is OK, but adoring just another man isn't? Dammit, there's reference to that man-crush thing again. Somebody got a dictionary? I'm penning these questions NOT because I'm seeking to discuss or argue them with you. Don't embarrass yourself by pretending that I've
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
Dear Barry, I have read your post to Robin this morning. I like it. It feels good. And I think there is a lot of truth there--But you know that Robin will never really take it in. I mean you must know this by your very analysis! He can't afford to see that what you have said is true, Barry. You know this. I know this. I can't get through to Robin either; so no sense feeling frustrated that Robin has not meaningfully addressed your post. He certainly should. But I bet he doesn't. I did read what he has said so far, but I can't make out what the fuck he is doing there. Only he knows for sure. But one thing is certain: He did not have the courage to answer your analysis--unless I have misinterpreted him. Anyhow, Barry, this is just said to let you know: You are not alone. I support your campaign to expose Robin's gayness towards Maharishi, his desperate (and for me clumsy) attempts to recruit more disciples, and his chronic narcissism and untreated psychosis. Look, Barry: We know we are right. I think we shall just have to leave it there. What I would like to see yo do next time, Barry, is to speak to Robin about the same problems, but conceive of doing this to as to *induce him to change*--or at least to seek professional help. I think by the way you talk down to him, Barry, that you just inflame his pride, thus making it even harder for him to get the counselling that he needs. Have you considered another approach? one where you sympathize with Robin, leading him through your caring for him to that momentous occasion when he does seriously look at himself in the mirror and realizes: Yeah, Barry was right all along. But I could never admit this to myself because somewhere he was always out to hurt me more than he was out to help me. Think about this, Barry. Will you? Robin is so screwed up he gives me permission to post this under his name, and yet, when I ask him to talk straight about this matter, he just overturns my coffee and tells me to STFU. He says I am wrong, that he is not crazy, and you, Barry, just hate him for no good reason. There is a decidedly irrational streak in Robin, so at this point, my pants soaked with coffee stains, and feeling how hot (he always gets extra-hot) that coffee is on my skin, I just say: Let us pray. And wold you believe it, Barry? Robin and I go down on our knees and try to invoke the mercy of the Self. Don't give up on him, Barry! Louis --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Dear Robin, For some reason, possibly the result of reading about compassion and deciding to subject myself to one of your rants *out* of compassion, I actually read the post below. Taking you at your word in this rant and in others, about your willingness to see yourself from points of view other than your own, I'm curious as to how you'll react to a few unrequested observations: 1. As many have pointed out, how does this letter to Raunchy *not* fit into the category of trolling for TMers in hopes of still attracting adoration, if not actual followers? Who else would CARE about what you felt and continue to feel for Maharishi? 2. Also as many have pointed out, for all your claims of challenging past assumptions, there seems to be one that you have never challenged, and continue to assert (again, only to TMers, the only group for which this claim would have any caveat or meaning) -- that you were once in Unity Consciousness as defined by MMY. Have you *ever* entertained the notion that you were just experiencing a bout of psychosis that you *interpreted* as a state that would be pleasing to the guy you had a man-crush on (Maharishi)? 3. Also, have you ever considered the possibility that all of the flashy experiences you attribute to having in Maharishi's presence are simply the result *OF* having a rather severe man-crush on him? This is a question that anyone reading that you have spent the last 25 years of your life living with a guy who seems to have a similar man-crush on you might ask. Just sayin'... 4. Have you ever pondered the *extraordinary* ramifications of stating that my perception of a matter concerning myself was incorrect happened for the *first* time in your life at a rather advanced age? That statement is pretty much a self-diagnosis of a person whose entire life to that point had been spent under the influence of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I would assert that no one *not* suffering from NPD could have possibly reached such an age without encountering a few things about himself or herself that they'd been incorrect about. 5. Have you ever considered the possibility that one of the reasons you still claim to hold Maharishi to be so important and so powerful is that you're still trying to butter up the only possible audience for your narcissistic ramblings about yourself and your borrowed philosophy -- TMers or former TMers? 6. Have you ever considered the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: In response to what is quoted here from Robin, in my opinion the problem was always that with someone with the tremendous energy of Maharishi (and by energy I mean the palpable energy field around him that some people could feel) coupled with his oratory abilities and his drive and knowledge, but PRIMARILY because of the energy around him, no one ever stopped to consider that a person can have that kind of energy and charisma and STILL have ego. Think of your own ego, and imagine the energy you felt around M funneled through your ego and guided and co-opted by that ego - that is what we had with Maharishi - tremendous Divine Energy funneled through a big ego. I still say if you believe he was enlightened in the way enlightenment is described in the Vedas, then much of what he did personally and nothing of what the Movement did makes any sense. If you realize he was using his power and energy to have a hell of an ego trip, replete with lots of babes, oodles of money and the oft repeated experience of manipulating people AND getting to set himself up as the Big Cheese then everything he did and everything the Movement did and continues to do makes total sense. Jackson, Your diagnosis puts him as Big Cheese egomaniac funneling Divine Energy. Could that put a capitalized letter 'E' on the ego of maniacal, and then also all for the capitalized 'Good'? Do you go that far? -Buck From: khazana108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 6:38 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: I have decided that Maharishi was more seductive and entrancing and enthralling than the most beautiful woman in the world--the spiritual substituting here for the erotic. And yet for all that, I believe Maharishi was a lie. But I would be maybe 40% of the person I am now had I not known and devoted myself to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and his Teachings. And he allowed us to have the opportunity to initiate someone into TM: no one but an initiator in the early seventies can know what that was like. No one since Saint Peter has known what the experience was like to be around Maharishi. Christ took Peter away from his fishing; Maharishi took us away from psychedelics. It is a story that has hardly begun to be told. Oh well... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8RhZDGLEXM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Dear Robin, For some reason, possibly the result of reading about compassion and deciding to subject myself to one of your rants *out* of compassion, I actually read the post below. Taking you at your word in this rant and in others, about your willingness to see yourself from points of view other than your own, I'm curious as to how you'll react to a few unrequested observations: 1. As many have pointed out, how does this letter to Raunchy *not* fit into the category of trolling for TMers in hopes of still attracting adoration, if not actual followers? Who else would CARE about what you felt and continue to feel for Maharishi? ROBIN: Good point. Hadn't thought about it that way before. No more trolling for me. But how would what I said about Maharishi indicate my hopes of still attracting adoration? Needs to be explained. It didn't cause *you* to adore me--Were you momentarily tempted, though, by my description of my experience of Maharishi? 2. Also as many have pointed out, for all your claims of challenging past assumptions, there seems to be one that you have never challenged, and continue to assert (again, only to TMers, the only group for which this claim would have any caveat or meaning) -- that you were once in Unity Consciousness as defined by MMY. Have you *ever* entertained the notion that you were just experiencing a bout of psychosis that you *interpreted* as a state that would be pleasing to the guy you had a man-crush on (Maharishi)? ROBIN: Nope. Never gave it a thought--that is, until now. Psychosis not Unity. Big difference there, I suppose. The thought here is too intricate for me--I will return to this later, Barry. Thanks. [Robin to himself: Hey, Robbie Baby: maybe you were just having a ten year breakdown. Think about it, buddy. I think Barry just might be onto something here.] But then there is the other Robin, who just says: Fuck off, Robin, with that Barry Wright shit. It's not true. Do you hear me? It's not true. I am divided, Barry. 3. Also, have you ever considered the possibility that all of the flashy experiences you attribute to having in Maharishi's presence are simply the result *OF* having a rather severe man-crush on him? This is a question that anyone reading that you have spent the last 25 years of your life living with a guy who seems to have a similar man-crush on you might ask. Just sayin'... ROBIN: I don't flash on women; so, even if I am gay, why would I flash on a man? But it does make sense: I think, when I go deep into this question, that it seems true to me--or *could* be true: My appreciation for Maharishi was sublimated eros. But I am not prepared to 'out' myself just yet, Barry--and that guy who came to live with me, I gave him lots of love--if you know what i mean. ;-) I have been trying to get him interested in women for years. No luck there. He is just doing to me what I was doing to Maharishi. This is pretty heavy stuff, Barry. The sex thing, that is very hard to get complete control over, much less master. I want to be attracted to the opposite sex; but it just doesn't happen. 4. Have you ever pondered the *extraordinary* ramifications of stating that my perception of a matter concerning myself was incorrect happened for the *first* time in your life at a rather advanced age? That statement is pretty much a self-diagnosis of a person whose entire life to that point had been spent under the influence of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I would assert that no one *not* suffering from NPD could have possibly reached such an age without encountering a few things about himself or herself that they'd been incorrect about. ROBIN: Probably correct here. Can't think of any reasonable defence. I just had the overpowering feeing ever since I was a baby that I was Jesus. Not literally! nothing like that. But I was born with stigmata. And was friends with the Holy Ghost in another lifetime. Besides, this, I more or less just wanted to save up all my problems, and once I had had my fun being enlightened, I promised myself I would come back to those problems--which I ferociously denied for the first 43 years of my life. It was a matter of timing more than anything else, Barry. I admit it: I wasn't quite as nice as I thought I was. The retribution for my feigned ignorance about myself--it has been severe enough, Barry. Reality beat the shit out of me. You have to believe me on this. I have an understanding with my friend: He is allowed to have other affairs, just as long as he comes back to me. 5. Have you ever considered the possibility that one of the reasons you still claim to hold Maharishi to be so important and so powerful is that you're still trying to butter up the only possible audience for your narcissistic ramblings about yourself and your borrowed philosophy -- TMers or former TMers? ROBIN: But of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oxcart49 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: That's all. Do with the feedback what you will. I'm outa here... Out for a beer and rejoysing Is that like singing joy redux? More like going to a bar and drowning ones disappointment for getting old and rejected by young babes in lot's of green beer hoping meeting the lama-guy will make him feel better :-) in the thought of your favorite politician, the Dolly Lama soon coming to Holland ?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
The ego is what it is, it functions the way it functions. Among other things, as a created being, the ego has a vested interest in its own survival, in not looking at itself for the temporary energy pattern it is, but rather as a very pleasing Being unto itself. The ego functions by its own logic, and nothing else. Its logic allows it to do what it pleases to remain as it is, to perpetuate the basic energy patterns that make up the form of that particular ego. The ego will use any means to continue its existence and perpetuate its own energy pattern. It will use even legitimate spiritual energy and knowledge, swooping into the energy and knowledge and using it for its own egoic ends. Thus Maharishi who had a firm grounding in Vedic knowledge began at a certain point to use the dissemination of the knowledge to fuel his own egoic agenda, which I and others have described in other posts. I think you are asking me if I am willing to concede that he had a Good Ego that did Good for the world and the answer is no I do not. He did among other gurus from the east serve to introduce more awareness of meditation into the West. Most of the people who did or do TM believe he was the major influence in introducing meditation to the West, but that is because their opinions are biased by having followed him to some degree themselves. Followers of Yogananda would give him the credit, Muktananda devotees give Muktananda the credit and so on. So Maharishi had an influence in society, and many did consciously experience some degree of Pure Awareness as a result of TM practice. So did those who did and do other techniques. The TM Movement often touts the number of people who have been initiated into TM. But many have stopped doing TM for many reasons. The TM landscape is littered with basket cases, people whose lives and ability to function and do well in the world were short circuited by practice of TM and by associating with the Movement itself. That in my opinion is one of the things that has to be addressed in any honest discussion of the Movement and its effect on the world. As to the assertion that the Maharishi Effect and Yogic Flying is going to do all this great stuff, look its been 60 years, with about 36 of those years having groups of people practicing the flying sutra together. How long do you wait? If the Movement were gonna create world peace it would have done so by now. Relationship of body and akasha – lightness of cotton fibre is not gonna create world peace no matter how much we might want to believe so. To sum up, some people did get good things from their private practice of TM and continue to do so. Few people ever get any good out of messing with the Movement. But I do realize that no one is gonna change their mind about their concept of Maharishi and his effect. The deal is that all of us identify ourselves to some extent with what we do, what we wear, social status, bank account etc. Folks on the spiritual path like to disparage doctors, lawyers and socialites for doing so while we are busily identifying ourselves with our spiritual practice or guru. There is no difference between someone who identifies themselves as the object of perception as a doctor who makes a ton of money and a spiritual meditator who is saving the world by doing TM or whatever their chosen method of spiritual practice may be. It is still being object referral rather than self-referral, identifying ourselves with the Self. So some good and some not so good has come out of M being on the planet and doing his thing. Lots of people have not been able to believe that he could have the energy he had and still manipulate and mis-use people for his own egoic ends. I do. One can have tremendous power and energy and still be in ego and mis-use the power. Maharishi did. If you don’t believe it, just look at the Movement. It is his Movement, his creation. Look at the way the Movement and its leaders have always behaved. That is his creation. Many have for years created in their minds a separation between M and the Movement. It isn’t logical to do so. When people create something the energy of the creator goes into it and perpetuates it. If you believe that he was this pristine icon of do-gooder-ness and the Movement people just screwed everything up on their own, then he would have to have been completely oblivious to what was going on around him and would have to have been an incompetent manager and he most certainly was neither. From: Buck dhamiltony...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 11:14 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: In response to what is quoted here from Robin, in my opinion the problem was always that with someone with the tremendous energy of Maharishi (and by energy I mean the palpable energy
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
I meant to also say that since some people practice object referral on themselves with TM, they won't question the validity of Maharishi or TM because it would cause their own egoic structure to be put in danger of coming unglued. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: In response to what is quoted here from Robin, in my opinion the problem was always that with someone with the tremendous energy of Maharishi (and by energy I mean the palpable energy field around him that some people could feel) coupled with his oratory abilities and his drive and knowledge, but PRIMARILY because of the energy around him, no one ever stopped to consider that a person can have that kind of energy and charisma and STILL have ego. Think of your own ego, and imagine the energy you felt around M funneled through your ego and guided and co-opted by that ego - that is what we had with Maharishi - tremendous Divine Energy funneled through a big ego. I still say if you believe he was enlightened in the way enlightenment is described in the Vedas, then much of what he did personally and nothing of what the Movement did makes any sense. If you realize he was using his power and energy to have a hell of an ego trip, replete with lots of babes, oodles of money and the oft repeated experience of manipulating people AND getting to set himself up as the Big Cheese then everything he did and everything the Movement did and continues to do makes total sense. Jackson, Your diagnosis puts him as Big Cheese egomaniac funneling Divine Energy. Could that put a capitalized letter 'E' on the ego of maniacal, and then also all for the capitalized 'Good'? Do you go that far? -Buck From: khazana108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 6:38 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: I have decided that Maharishi was more seductive and entrancing and enthralling than the most beautiful woman in the world--the spiritual substituting here for the erotic. And yet for all that, I believe Maharishi was a lie. But I would be maybe 40% of the person I am now had I not known and devoted myself to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and his Teachings. And he allowed us to have the opportunity to initiate someone into TM: no one but an initiator in the early seventies can know what that was like. No one since Saint Peter has known what the experience was like to be around Maharishi. Christ took Peter away from his fishing; Maharishi took us away from psychedelics. It is a story that has hardly begun to be told. Oh well... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8RhZDGLEXM
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
I'm just saying that anyone can look at any behavior and talk about it with different language. A religious person might use the language of religion and talk about sin. A psychologist might use the language of psychology and talk about neuroses, etc. A neuroscientist might talk about behavior in terms of brain chemistry. Like that, I'm talking about behavior from the perspective of karma. Or what goes around comes around. In reference to the behavior of a lot of people I know, including several I only know via FFL, it seems that a lot of people on spiritual paths have some heavy duty karmic debts to deal with in this lifetime. I'd put myself and Robin and Barry in this category, in their case simply by the life events they've reported here. Lots of people I know, even some who have been told that they're in UC, have discovered that being realized is not what they thought it would be. I think even famous teachers like Adyashanti talk about this. I'm taking them all at their word. I started TM because Maharishi said we would fulfill all our desires. Not so spiritual. Now I'd say I'm more focused on emotional healing. Again, not so spiritual as a lot of people I know. And like most, I have my moments of pride and my moments of humbleness. From: oxcart49 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 8:49 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: FWIW, I sense that a lot of souls chose to incarnate during this extraordinary time when it would be RELATIVELY easy to become realized, whatever the heck that means! These souls chose to incarnate and get on a spiritual path even though they knew that they would have huge karmic debts to repay in the process. For myself it is a huge karmic debt I have to repay concerning abandonment. Others have other debts and compassion, or what the Buddhists call lovingkindness, seems to be the perfect universal solvent for this extraordinary time and these brave souls. I am lost here. What are you actually referring to Share? Pardon me, but this does not appear to address anything that was written below. Please clarify. And you used the word realized followed by whatever the heck that means. Excuse me again but how could you pretend you don't have some inkling of what to be realized means after so many years of study, practice and continued pursuing of spiritual goals? Or are you just being modest? From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 3:51 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits  Running my own text through the Synopsizer I and others have often wished you would employ :-), I think I can come up with a much more concise view of my thesis: It seems to me that another way of viewing the Robin Carlsen Story is as the multi-decade reaction of one man to having been rejected by the guy he had a man-crush on. IMO that description characterizes your adventures and misadventures as well as any other. I'm not saying that it's the *only* way to view your story, or the correct way. I'm just stating that it's a valid way of viewing it, and far more Occam's Razor-like than your own. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Dear Robin, For some reason, possibly the result of reading about compassion and deciding to subject myself to one of your rants *out* of compassion, I actually read the post below. Taking you at your word in this rant and in others, about your willingness to see yourself from points of view other than your own, I'm curious as to how you'll react to a few unrequested observations: 1. As many have pointed out, how does this letter to Raunchy *not* fit into the category of trolling for TMers in hopes of still attracting adoration, if not actual followers? Who else would CARE about what you felt and continue to feel for Maharishi? 2. Also as many have pointed out, for all your claims of challenging past assumptions, there seems to be one that you have never challenged, and continue to assert (again, only to TMers, the only group for which this claim would have any caveat or meaning) -- that you were once in Unity Consciousness as defined by MMY. Have you *ever* entertained the notion that you were just experiencing a bout of psychosis that you *interpreted* as a state that would be pleasing to the guy you had a man-crush on (Maharishi)? 3. Also, have you ever considered the possibility that all of the flashy experiences you attribute to having in Maharishi's presence are simply the result *OF* having a rather severe man-crush on him? This is a question that anyone reading that you
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oxcart49 no_reply@... wrote: Just a couple of small observations here from little old oxcart: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Dear Robin, 5. Have you ever considered the possibility that one of the reasons you still claim to hold Maharishi to be so important and so powerful is that you're still trying to butter up the only possible audience for your narcissistic ramblings about yourself and your borrowed philosophy -- TMers or former TMers? I am positive Robin has Buck in mind here for his next disciple. Buck, take note, Robin is after you so be careful. Barry, I think you might be safe, you probably aren't in his first draft pick. Jeez Oxcart Thank you so much that was a close call. Forewarned is forearmed, I didn't even see it coming. As I used to tell my Stirling friends who'd try to recruit me, I'm sorry but I can only do one cult at a time. -Buck in the Dome
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oxcart49 no_reply@ wrote: Just a couple of small observations here from little old oxcart: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Dear Robin, 5. Have you ever considered the possibility that one of the reasons you still claim to hold Maharishi to be so important and so powerful is that you're still trying to butter up the only possible audience for your narcissistic ramblings about yourself and your borrowed philosophy -- TMers or former TMers? I am positive Robin has Buck in mind here for his next disciple. Buck, take note, Robin is after you so be careful. Barry, I think you might be safe, you probably aren't in his first draft pick. Jeez Oxcart Thank you so much that was a close call. Forewarned is forearmed, I didn't even see it coming. As I used to tell my Stirling friends who'd try to recruit me, I'm sorry but I can only do one cult at a time. -Buck in the Dome No prob, Buck. Always watching your back. You are a rare breed and you need a little protecting. Plus, you showed an admirable sense of humour there with reference to being a monogamous cult member.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
Excellent point. Except that Bhairitu asked me about non TM people. I don't fall into that category. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 1:16 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: Yourself maybe? Excellent point, and exactly the same one I was hoping to make in the passage of mine that Alex quoted from a while back, which was originally about the phenomenon of darshan or transmission: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/55423 There are some traditions that explain this phenomenon in terms of recognition. You sit in the presence of someone who is firing on more cylinders than you are. They are higher, or in a more advanced state of con- sciousness. More aspects of their being have woken up. And in that person's presence, you find that similar aspects of YOUR being wake up. Many have been taught that such waking ups pretty much have to come from outside of ourselves, and that they are transmitted or given to us by teachers or holy people or whatever. Seems to me that this belief ignores the evidence of history (most of the enlight- ened beings we've been told about came to their realizations while *on their own*, not as the result of anyone doing anything to them) and the basic idea of who is responsible for us realizing our own enlightenment (us). While I understand this idea and its prevalence (what *other* belief is going to spring up in a tradition in which one had to pay for every step of the process, and receive it from someone who gives it?), I think it's not the healthiest way to look at the process of spiritual development. Feeling that one needs a teacher or a darshan-giver or someone to transmit realization to them is IMO one of the most common ways that people put off the process of realization. From: Share Long sharelong60@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 8:50 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits I really love what Alex says about WD gazing. AND for me it felt too top down when it was teachers and mentors being the gazers and everyone else being the gazees. It felt more right to me when everyone gazed with everyone else. Probably my authority issues involved. Lots of people liked the gazing a lot. I also know of shaktipat given by touch and have experienced it here in FF. Besides TM, long list and the word impressed is not at all the right word: I am forever grateful to the lineage of Kundalini Care in Knoxville, especially the 2 living exponents Shivarpita and Swamiji; I'm grateful to Ammachi and Mother Meera and Kurnamayi; I love Kwan Yin and Krishna Das' guru but have only seen pictures of them; I have huge respect for David Deida and John Douglas and John Newton and his teacher Howard Wills; I go deep with the writing of Adyashanti and Francis Lucille; and with the inquiry of Lester Levenson and Byron Katie; I love gazing with Braco and doing Spring Forest Qigong with Master Chunyi Lin. I've probably forgotten somebody (-: From: Bhairitu noozguru@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 7:14 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits  In my tradition shaktipat is given by touch. A lot of other traditions do it this way. Did you know that Maharishi also gave shaktipat when he first taught meditation? What non-TM people have you been impressed by? On 10/16/2012 02:06 PM, Share Long wrote: Silently making eye contact and I do remember the word shakitpat being used a few times. In the beginning only teachers and mentors gazed with others. Now everyone gazes with everyone. Since I didn't like it, I'm probably not the best to describe its benefits. How is shaktipat given in your tradition? guy at the gas station=Buddha At the Gas Pump? Impressed? Most recently I have been impressed by Dr. Nader because he seems brilliant AND compassionate AND down to earth. He is leading a very human life with a wife and children and a medical practice. From: Bhairitu noozguru@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:38 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits What is the gazing? I've been taught to give shaktipat by my tantra guru but it doesn't involve any gazing. Sometimes I wonder if these people had any authentic teacher or just some charlatan from India. There are probably more than a few Indians in the US who have learned tantra and some are astrologers and others are quiet maybe helping
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, marekreavis reavismarek@ wrote: I think a lot of us had this same experience with Maharishi. That's why his own recounting of his first exposure to Guru Dev had such resonance; we could relate to it in a visceral way. Not everyone did, of course, but it sure set the hook for a lot of dedicated service that followed. It's true, marek. When I first heard Maharishi's story of meeting Guru Dev, I did relate to it in a visceral way. I hadn't made the connection between my first contact with Maharishi and his first contact with Guru Dev, but it seems to make sense, it's was the biggest most glorious hook of my life. *** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: In my tradition shaktipat is given by touch. A lot of other traditions do it this way. Did you know that Maharishi also gave shaktipat when he first taught meditation? Maharishi did that to the end, mainly by sight. Yep. The first time I met Maharishi was in Detroit,1973. I took the day off from teaching school to help drive some folks in his entourage from the airport to a hotel. A small group of Detroiters met him on the Tarmac to give him a flower, and then we followed him through the airport like a row of ducks to a car waiting to pick him up. As he was getting into the car I happened to be about two or three feet from him, eyeball to eyeball. I didn't know anything about shaktipat but it was a direct hit that felt like an eternity. I was utterly exposed, he *knew* me, saw right into my being. It was a moment of recognition, two souls meeting. He claimed me as his own and I gave my heart to him. Dear raunchy, For me, seeing Maharishi physically (especially having him address one personally, or even just being very near to him) was always the most decisive and efficacious spiritual experience I ever had. Whatever is the final explanation for Maharishi and all that happened to us as TM Teachers, I have the strongest sense that there has never been anyone since Christ who could influence a human being deep inside that human being as Maharishi could. I believe your experience of Maharishi at the airport--and that hook with regard to his relationship with Guru Dev--is at the very heart of what the entire experience of being a disciple of Maharishi was all about. The most sophisticated idea I could have of what God would be like if he became a human being: Maharishi, at the peak of his powers and brilliance, was this. Having Maharishi arrive in his helicopter and then spend several hours with us (I am thinking especially of my Six Month Course)--each of us trying to get as near to him as possible--was like nothing else we will ever know. Whoever Maharishi was, the powers behind the universe gave him capacities that no other human being has ever had. His beauty and radiance and energy penetrated into my body and consciousness and heart. There is no religious experience that could, in our lifetime, be a substitute for the experience of being in the physical presence of Maharishi. He utterly changed me when I first came to know him at Queen's University in the summer of 1972, and then on three separate courses in Europe he transformed me so that I became a different person. There has only been one truly magical being in my life, and that was Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. He WAS the best imitation of the Second Coming there will ever be. And, as Marek points out, his reflections on his relationship with Guru Dev, one just knew this is what it is all about: that one was to emulate Maharishi in this way, by orienting oneself towards Maharishi as he oriented himself to Guru Dev. Maharishi lived a truth of consciousness that cannot be denied. The question becomes: Is the most extraordinary personal consciousness that was Maharishi's consciousness, does that consciousness represent objectively the truth of the fulfillment of what a human being can be? I have decided that Maharishi was more seductive and entrancing and enthralling than the most beautiful woman in the world--the spiritual substituting here for the erotic. And yet for all that, I believe Maharishi was a lie. But I would be maybe 40% of the person I am now had I not known and devoted myself to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and his Teachings. And he allowed us to have the opportunity to initiate someone into TM: no one but an initiator in the early seventies can know what that was
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, marekreavis reavismarek@ wrote: I think a lot of us had this same experience with Maharishi. That's why his own recounting of his first exposure to Guru Dev had such resonance; we could relate to it in a visceral way. Not everyone did, of course, but it sure set the hook for a lot of dedicated service that followed. It's true, marek. When I first heard Maharishi's story of meeting Guru Dev, I did relate to it in a visceral way. I hadn't made the connection between my first contact with Maharishi and his first contact with Guru Dev, but it seems to make sense, it's was the biggest most glorious hook of my life. *** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: In my tradition shaktipat is given by touch. A lot of other traditions do it this way. Did you know that Maharishi also gave shaktipat when he first taught meditation? Maharishi did that to the end, mainly by sight. Yep. The first time I met Maharishi was in Detroit,1973. I took the day off from teaching school to help drive some folks in his entourage from the airport to a hotel. A small group of Detroiters met him on the Tarmac to give him a flower, and then we followed him through the airport like a row of ducks to a car waiting to pick him up. As he was getting into the car I happened to be about two or three feet from him, eyeball to eyeball. I didn't know anything about shaktipat but it was a direct hit that felt like an eternity. I was utterly exposed, he *knew* me, saw right into my being. It was a moment of recognition, two souls meeting. He claimed me as his own and I gave my heart to him. Dear raunchy, For me, seeing Maharishi physically (especially having him address one personally, or even just being very near to him) was always the most decisive and efficacious spiritual experience I ever had. Whatever is the final explanation for Maharishi and all that happened to us as TM Teachers, I have the strongest sense that there has never been anyone since Christ who could influence a human being deep inside that human being as Maharishi could. I believe your experience of Maharishi at the airport--and that hook with regard to his relationship with Guru Dev--is at the very heart of what the entire experience of being a disciple of Maharishi was all about. The most sophisticated idea I could have of what God would be like if he became a human being: Maharishi, at the peak of his powers and brilliance, was this. Having Maharishi arrive in his helicopter and then spend several hours with us (I am thinking especially of my Six Month Course)--each of us trying to get as near to him as possible--was like nothing else we will ever know. Whoever Maharishi was, the powers behind the universe gave him capacities that no other human being has ever had. His beauty and radiance and energy penetrated into my body and consciousness and heart. There is no religious experience that could, in our lifetime, be a substitute for the experience of being in the physical presence of Maharishi. He utterly changed me when I first came to know him at Queen's University in the summer of 1972, and then on three separate courses in Europe he transformed me so that I became a different person. There has only been one truly magical being in my life, and that was Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. He WAS the best imitation of the Second Coming there will ever be. And, as Marek points out, his reflections on his relationship with Guru Dev, one just knew this is what it is all about: that one was to emulate Maharishi in this way, by orienting oneself towards Maharishi as he oriented himself to Guru Dev. Maharishi lived a truth of consciousness that cannot be denied. The question becomes: Is the most extraordinary personal consciousness that was Maharishi's consciousness, does that consciousness represent objectively the truth of the fulfillment of what a human being can be? I have decided that Maharishi was more seductive and entrancing and enthralling than the most beautiful woman in the world--the spiritual substituting here for the erotic. And yet for all that, I believe Maharishi was a lie. But I would be maybe 40% of the person I am now had I not known and devoted myself to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and his Teachings. And he allowed us to have the opportunity to initiate someone into TM: no one but an initiator in the early seventies can know what that was
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, marekreavis reavismarek@ wrote: I think a lot of us had this same experience with Maharishi. That's why his own recounting of his first exposure to Guru Dev had such resonance; we could relate to it in a visceral way. Not everyone did, of course, but it sure set the hook for a lot of dedicated service that followed. It's true, marek. When I first heard Maharishi's story of meeting Guru Dev, I did relate to it in a visceral way. I hadn't made the connection between my first contact with Maharishi and his first contact with Guru Dev, but it seems to make sense, it's was the biggest most glorious hook of my life. *** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: In my tradition shaktipat is given by touch. A lot of other traditions do it this way. Did you know that Maharishi also gave shaktipat when he first taught meditation? Maharishi did that to the end, mainly by sight. Yep. The first time I met Maharishi was in Detroit,1973. I took the day off from teaching school to help drive some folks in his entourage from the airport to a hotel. A small group of Detroiters met him on the Tarmac to give him a flower, and then we followed him through the airport like a row of ducks to a car waiting to pick him up. As he was getting into the car I happened to be about two or three feet from him, eyeball to eyeball. I didn't know anything about shaktipat but it was a direct hit that felt like an eternity. I was utterly exposed, he *knew* me, saw right into my being. It was a moment of recognition, two souls meeting. He claimed me as his own and I gave my heart to him. Dear raunchy, For me, seeing Maharishi physically (especially having him address one personally, or even just being very near to him) was always the most decisive and efficacious spiritual experience I ever had. Whatever is the final explanation for Maharishi and all that happened to us as TM Teachers, I have the strongest sense that there has never been anyone since Christ who could influence a human being deep inside that human being as Maharishi could. I believe your experience of Maharishi at the airport--and that hook with regard to his relationship with Guru Dev--is at the very heart of what the entire experience of being a disciple of Maharishi was all about. The most sophisticated idea I could have of what God would be like if he became a human being: Maharishi, at the peak of his powers and brilliance, was this. Having Maharishi arrive in his helicopter and then spend several hours with us (I am thinking especially of my Six Month Course)--each of us trying to get as near to him as possible--was like nothing else we will ever know. Whoever Maharishi was, the powers behind the universe gave him capacities that no other human being has ever had. His beauty and radiance and energy penetrated into my body and consciousness and heart. There is no religious experience that could, in our lifetime, be a substitute for the experience of being in the physical presence of Maharishi. He utterly changed me when I first came to know him at Queen's University in the summer of 1972, and then on three separate courses in Europe he transformed me so that I became a different person. There has only been one truly magical being in my life, and that was Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. He WAS the best imitation of the Second Coming there will ever be. And, as Marek points out, his reflections on his relationship with Guru Dev, one just knew this is what it is all about: that one was to emulate Maharishi in this way, by orienting oneself towards Maharishi as he oriented himself to Guru Dev. Maharishi lived a truth of consciousness that cannot be denied. The question becomes: Is the most extraordinary personal consciousness that was Maharishi's consciousness, does that consciousness represent objectively the truth of the fulfillment of what a human being can be? I have decided that Maharishi was more seductive and entrancing and enthralling than the most beautiful woman in the world--the spiritual substituting here for the erotic. And yet for all that, I believe Maharishi was a lie. But I would be maybe 40% of the person I am now had I not known and devoted myself
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: I have decided that Maharishi was more seductive and entrancing and enthralling than the most beautiful woman in the world--the spiritual substituting here for the erotic. And yet for all that, I believe Maharishi was a lie. But I would be maybe 40% of the person I am now had I not known and devoted myself to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and his Teachings. And he allowed us to have the opportunity to initiate someone into TM: no one but an initiator in the early seventies can know what that was like. No one since Saint Peter has known what the experience was like to be around Maharishi. Christ took Peter away from his fishing; Maharishi took us away from psychedelics. It is a story that has hardly begun to be told. Oh well... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8RhZDGLEXM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: The real turning point, however, raunchy, came when my best friend (although he was not at this time) demonstrated to me that my perception of a matter concerning myself was incorrect, and that his perception of me was the objective one. I had never experienced anything like this in my life: someone proving they knew me better than I knew myself. At that moment--even though I had begun to challenge my enlightenment intellectually and religiously (via Catholicism and the breakdown of the trustworthiness of my authority)--my inner and outer world literally collapsed. My enlightenment--which required that I was always in contact with more truth than anyone non-enlightened--was fundamentally refuted. The vertiginous experience of this was like nothing that had ever happened to me not just since my enlightenment, but even in the whole span of my life. My friend, who subsequently came to live with me (because of his remarkable and inspired insight into me), began a process of showing me how, in ten thousand different ways, I had got it all wrong, and this process of confrontation, analysis, revelation, humiliation, and treatment (I applied the treatment, the remedy myself: I 'operated' on myself) has continued over the course of the past twenty-five years. Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose, Nothing don't mean nothing honey if it ain't free, now now. And feeling good was easy, Lord, when he sang the blues, You know feeling good was good enough for me, Good enough for me and my Bobby McGee. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXV_QjenbDw
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: I had to do violence to myself through my own will to break my bond with Maharishi, raunchy. But what Maharishi made possible for me to pass through, that has left me with an experience of myself and an experience of performing/functioning like no other. Only Maharishi could have made me what I am today, even though I consider him my adversary in terms of what I hold to be true. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2ldtuSfm9g
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
I've also been in the presence of people who have what I call voice. That is their voice transmits shaktipat. Kate Winslet and Harvey Keitel: perfect casting for Holy Smoke IMO. From: Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 1:52 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits Yes there is more than one way of giving shaktipat. My teacher knows a remote technique too but hasn't taught me it. If you can find the movie Holy Smoke by Jane Campion (it's up on YouTube in parts and available streaming on Amazon) the opening has a scene with Kate Winslet getting shaktipat. Campion seems to have some knowledge of TM because she has a group checking session in the movie Sweetie which is available on Hulu, VUDU and iTunes. On 10/17/2012 04:35 AM, Share Long wrote: Setting the record straight: the comment about shaktipat by touch was made by Bhairitu. From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 3:57 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits Bhairitu wrote: In my tradition shaktipat is given by touch. A lot of other traditions do it this way. Did you know that Maharishi also gave shaktipat when he first taught meditation? Maharishi did that to the end, mainly by sight.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: I have decided that Maharishi was more seductive and entrancing and enthralling than the most beautiful woman in the world--the spiritual substituting here for the erotic. And yet for all that, I believe Maharishi was a lie. But I would be maybe 40% of the person I am now had I not known and devoted myself to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and his Teachings. And he allowed us to have the opportunity to initiate someone into TM: no one but an initiator in the early seventies can know what that was like. No one since Saint Peter has known what the experience was like to be around Maharishi. Christ took Peter away from his fishing; Maharishi took us away from psychedelics. It is a story that has hardly begun to be told. Oh well... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8RhZDGLEXM What exactly does that mean Khazana? Are you an empathetic being 108? I am interested to know.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
In response to what is quoted here from Robin, in my opinion the problem was always that with someone with the tremendous energy of Maharishi (and by energy I mean the palpable energy field around him that some people could feel) coupled with his oratory abilities and his drive and knowledge, but PRIMARILY because of the energy around him, no one ever stopped to consider that a person can have that kind of energy and charisma and STILL have ego. Think of your own ego, and imagine the energy you felt around M funneled through your ego and guided and co-opted by that ego - that is what we had with Maharishi - tremendous Divine Energy funneled through a big ego. I still say if you believe he was enlightened in the way enlightenment is described in the Vedas, then much of what he did personally and nothing of what the Movement did makes any sense. If you realize he was using his power and energy to have a hell of an ego trip, replete with lots of babes, oodles of money and the oft repeated experience of manipulating people AND getting to set himself up as the Big Cheese then everything he did and everything the Movement did and continues to do makes total sense. From: khazana108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 6:38 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: I have decided that Maharishi was more seductive and entrancing and enthralling than the most beautiful woman in the world--the spiritual substituting here for the erotic. And yet for all that, I believe Maharishi was a lie. But I would be maybe 40% of the person I am now had I not known and devoted myself to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and his Teachings. And he allowed us to have the opportunity to initiate someone into TM: no one but an initiator in the early seventies can know what that was like. No one since Saint Peter has known what the experience was like to be around Maharishi. Christ took Peter away from his fishing; Maharishi took us away from psychedelics. It is a story that has hardly begun to be told. Oh well... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8RhZDGLEXM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: Yourself maybe? Excellent point, and exactly the same one I was hoping to make in the passage of mine that Alex quoted from a while back, which was originally about the phenomenon of darshan or transmission: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/55423 There are some traditions that explain this phenomenon in terms of recognition. You sit in the presence of someone who is firing on more cylinders than you are. They are higher, or in a more advanced state of con- sciousness. More aspects of their being have woken up. And in that person's presence, you find that similar aspects of YOUR being wake up. Many have been taught that such waking ups pretty much have to come from outside of ourselves, and that they are transmitted or given to us by teachers or holy people or whatever. Seems to me that this belief ignores the evidence of history (most of the enlight- ened beings we've been told about came to their realizations while *on their own*, not as the result of anyone doing anything to them) and the basic idea of who is responsible for us realizing our own enlightenment (us). While I understand this idea and its prevalence (what *other* belief is going to spring up in a tradition in which one had to pay for every step of the process, and receive it from someone who gives it?), I think it's not the healthiest way to look at the process of spiritual development. Feeling that one needs a teacher or a darshan-giver or someone to transmit realization to them is IMO one of the most common ways that people put off the process of realization. From: Share Long sharelong60@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 8:50 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits I really love what Alex says about WD gazing. AND for me it felt too top down when it was teachers and mentors being the gazers and everyone else being the gazees. It felt more right to me when everyone gazed with everyone else. Probably my authority issues involved. Lots of people liked the gazing a lot. I also know of shaktipat given by touch and have experienced it here in FF. Besides TM, long list and the word impressed is not at all the right word: I am forever grateful to the lineage of Kundalini Care in Knoxville, especially the 2 living exponents Shivarpita and Swamiji; I'm grateful to Ammachi and Mother Meera and Kurnamayi; I love Kwan Yin and Krishna Das' guru but have only seen pictures of them; I have huge respect for David Deida and John Douglas and John Newton and his teacher Howard Wills; I go deep with the writing of Adyashanti and Francis Lucille; and with the inquiry of Lester Levenson and Byron Katie; I love gazing with Braco and doing Spring Forest Qigong with Master Chunyi Lin. I've probably forgotten somebody (-: From: Bhairitu noozguru@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 7:14 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits  In my tradition shaktipat is given by touch. A lot of other traditions do it this way. Did you know that Maharishi also gave shaktipat when he first taught meditation? What non-TM people have you been impressed by? On 10/16/2012 02:06 PM, Share Long wrote: Silently making eye contact and I do remember the word shakitpat being used a few times. In the beginning only teachers and mentors gazed with others. Now everyone gazes with everyone. Since I didn't like it, I'm probably not the best to describe its benefits. How is shaktipat given in your tradition? guy at the gas station=Buddha At the Gas Pump? Impressed? Most recently I have been impressed by Dr. Nader because he seems brilliant AND compassionate AND down to earth. He is leading a very human life with a wife and children and a medical practice. From: Bhairitu noozguru@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:38 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits What is the gazing? I've been taught to give shaktipat by my tantra guru but it doesn't involve any gazing. Sometimes I wonder if these people had any authentic teacher or just some charlatan from India. There are probably more than a few Indians in the US who have learned tantra and some are astrologers and others are quiet maybe helping someone if they ask. And then there is the guy at the gas station who decided to call himself a Swami for some extra money. It's a good thing to spend a few months testing a teacher and boning up on the field through books such as Dr. Robert Svoboda's excellent trilogy (on what it is like to be a westerner
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: In my tradition shaktipat is given by touch. A lot of other traditions do it this way. Did you know that Maharishi also gave shaktipat when he first taught meditation? Maharishi did that to the end, mainly by sight.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
Setting the record straight: the comment about shaktipat by touch was made by Bhairitu. From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 3:57 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits Bhairitu wrote: In my tradition shaktipat is given by touch. A lot of other traditions do it this way. Did you know that Maharishi also gave shaktipat when he first taught meditation? Maharishi did that to the end, mainly by sight.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Setting the record straight:Â the comment about shaktipat by touch was made by Bhairitu. Yes, that would explain it :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: In my tradition shaktipat is given by touch. A lot of other traditions do it this way. Did you know that Maharishi also gave shaktipat when he first taught meditation? Maharishi did that to the end, mainly by sight. Yep. The first time I met Maharishi was in Detroit,1973. I took the day off from teaching school to help drive some folks in his entourage from the airport to a hotel. A small group of Detroiters met him on the Tarmac to give him a flower, and then we followed him through the airport like a row of ducks to a car waiting to pick him up. As he was getting into the car I happened to be about two or three feet from him, eyeball to eyeball. I didn't know anything about shaktipat but it was a direct hit that felt like an eternity. I was utterly exposed, he *knew* me, saw right into my being. It was a moment of recognition, two souls meeting. He claimed me as his own and I gave my heart to him.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
I think a lot of us had this same experience with Maharishi. That's why his own recounting of his first exposure to Guru Dev had such resonance; we could relate to it in a visceral way. Not everyone did, of course, but it sure set the hook for a lot of dedicated service that followed. *** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: In my tradition shaktipat is given by touch. A lot of other traditions do it this way. Did you know that Maharishi also gave shaktipat when he first taught meditation? Maharishi did that to the end, mainly by sight. Yep. The first time I met Maharishi was in Detroit,1973. I took the day off from teaching school to help drive some folks in his entourage from the airport to a hotel. A small group of Detroiters met him on the Tarmac to give him a flower, and then we followed him through the airport like a row of ducks to a car waiting to pick him up. As he was getting into the car I happened to be about two or three feet from him, eyeball to eyeball. I didn't know anything about shaktipat but it was a direct hit that felt like an eternity. I was utterly exposed, he *knew* me, saw right into my being. It was a moment of recognition, two souls meeting. He claimed me as his own and I gave my heart to him.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, marekreavis reavismarek@... wrote: I think a lot of us had this same experience with Maharishi. That's why his own recounting of his first exposure to Guru Dev had such resonance; we could relate to it in a visceral way. Not everyone did, of course, but it sure set the hook for a lot of dedicated service that followed. It's true, marek. When I first heard Maharishi's story of meeting Guru Dev, I did relate to it in a visceral way. I hadn't made the connection between my first contact with Maharishi and his first contact with Guru Dev, but it seems to make sense, it's was the biggest most glorious hook of my life. *** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: In my tradition shaktipat is given by touch. A lot of other traditions do it this way. Did you know that Maharishi also gave shaktipat when he first taught meditation? Maharishi did that to the end, mainly by sight. Yep. The first time I met Maharishi was in Detroit,1973. I took the day off from teaching school to help drive some folks in his entourage from the airport to a hotel. A small group of Detroiters met him on the Tarmac to give him a flower, and then we followed him through the airport like a row of ducks to a car waiting to pick him up. As he was getting into the car I happened to be about two or three feet from him, eyeball to eyeball. I didn't know anything about shaktipat but it was a direct hit that felt like an eternity. I was utterly exposed, he *knew* me, saw right into my being. It was a moment of recognition, two souls meeting. He claimed me as his own and I gave my heart to him.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
Thanks, makes me chuckle even with second viewing (-: From: oxcart49 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 8:54 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Silently making eye contact and I do remember the word shakitpat being used a few times. In the beginning only teachers and mentors gazed with others. Now everyone gazes with everyone.  Since I didn't like it, I'm probably not the best to describe its benefits. How is shaktipat given in your tradition? guy at the gas station=Buddha At the Gas Pump? Impressed? Most recently I have been impressed by Dr. Nader because he seems brilliant AND compassionate AND down to earth. He is leading a very human life with a wife and children and a medical practice. From: Bhairitu noozguru@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:38 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits  What is the gazing? I've been taught to give shaktipat by my tantra guru but it doesn't involve any gazing. Sometimes I wonder if these people had any authentic teacher or just some charlatan from India. There are probably more than a few Indians in the US who have learned tantra and some are astrologers and others are quiet maybe helping someone if they ask. And then there is the guy at the gas station who decided to call himself a Swami for some extra money. It's a good thing to spend a few months testing a teacher and boning up on the field through books such as Dr. Robert Svoboda's excellent trilogy (on what it is like to be a westerner learning from an authentic tantric). I would also be interested in what kind of things impress people? On 10/16/2012 10:55 AM, Share Long wrote: laughing because different strokes, etc. I rarely liked the gazing. OTOH, I wasn't comfortable attending and NOT participating in gazing. And they don't like people coming late to avoid the gazing... WDM gave me a steady spiritual family when I first left campus. I'll always be grateful for that. Even so, I was never looking for another theory of consciounsess, etc. so I didn't mind their lack of that. And I do think the whole mutuality angle is an important one that very few others discuss. Didn't go last night but am busting with curiosity about it (-: From: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 12:49 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: And it cost $20 too. I see Bonder as a guy with a few ideas, which may or may not be helpful to some people. Waking Down is a small, niche path that is certainly not for everyone. I have heard him twice, and can't say I have been overwhelmingly impressed. I wasn't at all impressed the first time I went to see him and Linda at the FF library, about 10 years ago. But, on his next trip to FF, he was here with Pascal Salesses, a WD teacher who had just moved to FF, and I felt a connection with her. I'm grateful that Saniel started WD, but I've always connected better with some of the other teachers. And, I can't even begin to get through his books. For me, the WD experience had nothing to do with ideas; it was all about the gazing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
feste37: The structure of Waking Down is somewhat curious, though... 'Waking Down' (WD) is derived from the same source as the 'Neo-Advaitins'. Notions of being all of who we are, 'unity', 'awakening', to the fullness of your own nature, being united in the here-and-now, are pages straight out of the Neo-Advaitin handbook. Realizing an awakend state of unity consciousness and intergration into daily life, without the need for a spiritual master or without a practice, are almost pure Neo-Advaita.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams richard@... wrote: feste37: The structure of Waking Down is somewhat curious, though... 'Waking Down' (WD) is derived from the same source as the 'Neo-Advaitins'. Notions of being all of who we are, 'unity', 'awakening', to the fullness of your own nature, being united in the here-and-now, are pages straight out of the Neo-Advaitin handbook. Realizing an awakend state of unity consciousness and intergration into daily life, without the need for a spiritual master or without a practice, are almost pure Neo-Advaita. Big difference: in Waking Down there is absolutely *zero* dismissal of relative existence as being unimportant. It's more accurate to describe WD as Western nondual Tantra than Neo-Advaita.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: In my tradition shaktipat is given by touch. A lot of other traditions do it this way. Did you know that Maharishi also gave shaktipat when he first taught meditation? Maharishi did that to the end, mainly by sight. Yep. The first time I met Maharishi was in Detroit,1973. I took the day off from teaching school to help drive some folks in his entourage from the airport to a hotel. A small group of Detroiters met him on the Tarmac to give him a flower, and then we followed him through the airport like a row of ducks to a car waiting to pick him up. As he was getting into the car I happened to be about two or three feet from him, eyeball to eyeball. I didn't know anything about shaktipat but it was a direct hit that felt like an eternity. I was utterly exposed, he *knew* me, saw right into my being. It was a moment of recognition, two souls meeting. He claimed me as his own and I gave my heart to him. Nice. How did you feel the next 2-3 days ?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
Yes there is more than one way of giving shaktipat. My teacher knows a remote technique too but hasn't taught me it. If you can find the movie Holy Smoke by Jane Campion (it's up on YouTube in parts and available streaming on Amazon) the opening has a scene with Kate Winslet getting shaktipat. Campion seems to have some knowledge of TM because she has a group checking session in the movie Sweetie which is available on Hulu, VUDU and iTunes. On 10/17/2012 04:35 AM, Share Long wrote: Setting the record straight: the comment about shaktipat by touch was made by Bhairitu. From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 3:57 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits Bhairitu wrote: In my tradition shaktipat is given by touch. A lot of other traditions do it this way. Did you know that Maharishi also gave shaktipat when he first taught meditation? Maharishi did that to the end, mainly by sight.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, marekreavis reavismarek@ wrote: I think a lot of us had this same experience with Maharishi. That's why his own recounting of his first exposure to Guru Dev had such resonance; we could relate to it in a visceral way. Not everyone did, of course, but it sure set the hook for a lot of dedicated service that followed. It's true, marek. When I first heard Maharishi's story of meeting Guru Dev, I did relate to it in a visceral way. I hadn't made the connection between my first contact with Maharishi and his first contact with Guru Dev, but it seems to make sense, it's was the biggest most glorious hook of my life. *** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: In my tradition shaktipat is given by touch. A lot of other traditions do it this way. Did you know that Maharishi also gave shaktipat when he first taught meditation? Maharishi did that to the end, mainly by sight. Yep. The first time I met Maharishi was in Detroit,1973. I took the day off from teaching school to help drive some folks in his entourage from the airport to a hotel. A small group of Detroiters met him on the Tarmac to give him a flower, and then we followed him through the airport like a row of ducks to a car waiting to pick him up. As he was getting into the car I happened to be about two or three feet from him, eyeball to eyeball. I didn't know anything about shaktipat but it was a direct hit that felt like an eternity. I was utterly exposed, he *knew* me, saw right into my being. It was a moment of recognition, two souls meeting. He claimed me as his own and I gave my heart to him. Dear raunchy, For me, seeing Maharishi physically (especially having him address one personally, or even just being very near to him) was always the most decisive and efficacious spiritual experience I ever had. Whatever is the final explanation for Maharishi and all that happened to us as TM Teachers, I have the strongest sense that there has never been anyone since Christ who could influence a human being deep inside that human being as Maharishi could. I believe your experience of Maharishi at the airport--and that hook with regard to his relationship with Guru Dev--is at the very heart of what the entire experience of being a disciple of Maharishi was all about. The most sophisticated idea I could have of what God would be like if he became a human being: Maharishi, at the peak of his powers and brilliance, was this. Having Maharishi arrive in his helicopter and then spend several hours with us (I am thinking especially of my Six Month Course)--each of us trying to get as near to him as possible--was like nothing else we will ever know. Whoever Maharishi was, the powers behind the universe gave him capacities that no other human being has ever had. His beauty and radiance and energy penetrated into my body and consciousness and heart. There is no religious experience that could, in our lifetime, be a substitute for the experience of being in the physical presence of Maharishi. He utterly changed me when I first came to know him at Queen's University in the summer of 1972, and then on three separate courses in Europe he transformed me so that I became a different person. There has only been one truly magical being in my life, and that was Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. He WAS the best imitation of the Second Coming there will ever be. And, as Marek points out, his reflections on his relationship with Guru Dev, one just knew this is what it is all about: that one was to emulate Maharishi in this way, by orienting oneself towards Maharishi as he oriented himself to Guru Dev. Maharishi lived a truth of consciousness that cannot be denied. The question becomes: Is the most extraordinary personal consciousness that was Maharishi's consciousness, does that consciousness represent objectively the truth of the fulfillment of what a human being can be? I have decided that Maharishi was more seductive and entrancing and enthralling than the most beautiful woman in the world--the spiritual substituting here for the erotic. And yet for all that, I believe Maharishi was a lie. But I would be maybe 40% of the person I am now had I not known and devoted myself to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and his Teachings. And he allowed us to have the opportunity to initiate someone into TM: no one but an initiator in the early seventies can know what that was like. No one since Saint Peter has known what the experience was like to be around Maharishi. Christ took Peter away from his fishing; Maharishi took us away from
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: To have surrendered to Maharishi as God; then to have fought to destroy his power over one's own consciousness: This is a process I don't recommend, but it is a process which has left me with a legacy of ecstasy, suffering, and revelation like no other. I am always glad when someone can remember the truth of the experience of who Maharishi was and how he convinced us by the beauty and power of his own individual being. Beautiful !
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: At the grocery store just a few moments ago I just heard from a brother of a Raja here that Saniel Bonder founder of waking up is in Fairfield with an open meeting for folks tonite at 7pm hosted at the McElhaney. I's just calls it like I's heard it. Another day in FF life and another sage visits. -Buck Dateline Fairfield, Iowa. ** The meeting was packed with spiritual Fairfield. It is interesting how many satsangs there are in Fairfield working on the subtle system of spiritual embodiment. And, how many are working at it also through a transmission-like shakti-path as in Waking Down with Saniel Bonder for example. In the larger meditating community this is where a lot of the community has tread; working at opening up a place where grace comes in to the spiritual system beyond transcendence. ** On the streets and in the meetings, -Buck
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
And it cost $20 too. I see Bonder as a guy with a few ideas, which may or may not be helpful to some people. I have heard him twice, and can't say I have been overwhelmingly impressed. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: At the grocery store just a few moments ago I just heard from a brother of a Raja here that Saniel Bonder founder of waking up is in Fairfield with an open meeting for folks tonite at 7pm hosted at the McElhaney. I's just calls it like I's heard it. Another day in FF life and another sage visits. -Buck Dateline Fairfield, Iowa. ** The meeting was packed with spiritual Fairfield. It is interesting how many satsangs there are in Fairfield working on the subtle system of spiritual embodiment. And, how many are working at it also through a transmission-like shakti-path as in Waking Down with Saniel Bonder for example. In the larger meditating community this is where a lot of the community has tread; working at opening up a place where grace comes in to the spiritual system beyond transcendence. ** On the streets and in the meetings, -Buck
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote: And it cost $20 too. I see Bonder as a guy with a few ideas, which may or may not be helpful to some people. I have heard him twice, and can't say I have been overwhelmingly impressed. Yep, goes with the territory. Excerpting: Meditators in Fairfield, Ia. after 20, 30 and 40 years of spiritual practice together have their own experience with this and they certainly do freely meter the (veracity) of the experience of their spiritual practice accordingly. Between the different and several spirituality venues available in Fairfield outside of strict TM, Fairfield meditators flow back and forth depending on their spiritual experience as if in an American free- market in spirituality that is Fairfield. This is a collective Fairfield experience and there is a lot of cultivated spiritual experience in Fairfield presently with Quietism, Pietists and Inspirationists inter-mixed as they are in what has become the larger active Fairfield spiritual practice community. In practice if there is not a shakti in a venue then folks simply go on to the next one where the spiritual energy is better. This is the practiced experience in the spiritual community of Fairfield and people are practiced at this by virtue of longevity and in knowing their experience by contrast. -Buck --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: At the grocery store just a few moments ago I just heard from a brother of a Raja here that Saniel Bonder founder of waking up is in Fairfield with an open meeting for folks tonite at 7pm hosted at the McElhaney. I's just calls it like I's heard it. Another day in FF life and another sage visits. -Buck Dateline Fairfield, Iowa. ** The meeting was packed with spiritual Fairfield. It is interesting how many satsangs there are in Fairfield working on the subtle system of spiritual embodiment. And, how many are working at it also through a transmission-like shakti-path as in Waking Down with Saniel Bonder for example. In the larger meditating community this is where a lot of the community has tread; working at opening up a place where grace comes in to the spiritual system beyond transcendence. ** On the streets and in the meetings, -Buck
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote: And it cost $20 too. I see Bonder as a guy with a few ideas, which may or may not be helpful to some people. Waking Down is a small, niche path that is certainly not for everyone. I have heard him twice, and can't say I have been overwhelmingly impressed. I wasn't at all impressed the first time I went to see him and Linda at the FF library, about 10 years ago. But, on his next trip to FF, he was here with Pascal Salesses, a WD teacher who had just moved to FF, and I felt a connection with her. I'm grateful that Saniel started WD, but I've always connected better with some of the other teachers. And, I can't even begin to get through his books. For me, the WD experience had nothing to do with ideas; it was all about the gazing.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
laughing because different strokes, etc. I rarely liked the gazing. OTOH, I wasn't comfortable attending and NOT participating in gazing. And they don't like people coming late to avoid the gazing... WDM gave me a steady spiritual family when I first left campus. I'll always be grateful for that. Even so, I was never looking for another theory of consciounsess, etc. so I didn't mind their lack of that. And I do think the whole mutuality angle is an important one that very few others discuss. Didn't go last night but am busting with curiosity about it (-: From: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 12:49 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote: And it cost $20 too. I see Bonder as a guy with a few ideas, which may or may not be helpful to some people. Waking Down is a small, niche path that is certainly not for everyone. I have heard him twice, and can't say I have been overwhelmingly impressed. I wasn't at all impressed the first time I went to see him and Linda at the FF library, about 10 years ago. But, on his next trip to FF, he was here with Pascal Salesses, a WD teacher who had just moved to FF, and I felt a connection with her. I'm grateful that Saniel started WD, but I've always connected better with some of the other teachers. And, I can't even begin to get through his books. For me, the WD experience had nothing to do with ideas; it was all about the gazing.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
What is the gazing? I've been taught to give shaktipat by my tantra guru but it doesn't involve any gazing. Sometimes I wonder if these people had any authentic teacher or just some charlatan from India. There are probably more than a few Indians in the US who have learned tantra and some are astrologers and others are quiet maybe helping someone if they ask. And then there is the guy at the gas station who decided to call himself a Swami for some extra money. It's a good thing to spend a few months testing a teacher and boning up on the field through books such as Dr. Robert Svoboda's excellent trilogy (on what it is like to be a westerner learning from an authentic tantric). I would also be interested in what kind of things impress people? On 10/16/2012 10:55 AM, Share Long wrote: laughing because different strokes, etc. I rarely liked the gazing. OTOH, I wasn't comfortable attending and NOT participating in gazing. And they don't like people coming late to avoid the gazing... WDM gave me a steady spiritual family when I first left campus. I'll always be grateful for that. Even so, I was never looking for another theory of consciounsess, etc. so I didn't mind their lack of that. And I do think the whole mutuality angle is an important one that very few others discuss. Didn't go last night but am busting with curiosity about it (-: From: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 12:49 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote: And it cost $20 too. I see Bonder as a guy with a few ideas, which may or may not be helpful to some people. Waking Down is a small, niche path that is certainly not for everyone. I have heard him twice, and can't say I have been overwhelmingly impressed. I wasn't at all impressed the first time I went to see him and Linda at the FF library, about 10 years ago. But, on his next trip to FF, he was here with Pascal Salesses, a WD teacher who had just moved to FF, and I felt a connection with her. I'm grateful that Saniel started WD, but I've always connected better with some of the other teachers. And, I can't even begin to get through his books. For me, the WD experience had nothing to do with ideas; it was all about the gazing.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
Silently making eye contact and I do remember the word shakitpat being used a few times. In the beginning only teachers and mentors gazed with others. Now everyone gazes with everyone. Since I didn't like it, I'm probably not the best to describe its benefits. How is shaktipat given in your tradition? guy at the gas station=Buddha At the Gas Pump? Impressed? Most recently I have been impressed by Dr. Nader because he seems brilliant AND compassionate AND down to earth. He is leading a very human life with a wife and children and a medical practice. From: Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:38 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits What is the gazing? I've been taught to give shaktipat by my tantra guru but it doesn't involve any gazing. Sometimes I wonder if these people had any authentic teacher or just some charlatan from India. There are probably more than a few Indians in the US who have learned tantra and some are astrologers and others are quiet maybe helping someone if they ask. And then there is the guy at the gas station who decided to call himself a Swami for some extra money. It's a good thing to spend a few months testing a teacher and boning up on the field through books such as Dr. Robert Svoboda's excellent trilogy (on what it is like to be a westerner learning from an authentic tantric). I would also be interested in what kind of things impress people? On 10/16/2012 10:55 AM, Share Long wrote: laughing because different strokes, etc. I rarely liked the gazing. OTOH, I wasn't comfortable attending and NOT participating in gazing. And they don't like people coming late to avoid the gazing... WDM gave me a steady spiritual family when I first left campus. I'll always be grateful for that. Even so, I was never looking for another theory of consciounsess, etc. so I didn't mind their lack of that. And I do think the whole mutuality angle is an important one that very few others discuss. Didn't go last night but am busting with curiosity about it (-: From: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 12:49 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote: And it cost $20 too. I see Bonder as a guy with a few ideas, which may or may not be helpful to some people. Waking Down is a small, niche path that is certainly not for everyone. I have heard him twice, and can't say I have been overwhelmingly impressed. I wasn't at all impressed the first time I went to see him and Linda at the FF library, about 10 years ago. But, on his next trip to FF, he was here with Pascal Salesses, a WD teacher who had just moved to FF, and I felt a connection with her. I'm grateful that Saniel started WD, but I've always connected better with some of the other teachers. And, I can't even begin to get through his books. For me, the WD experience had nothing to do with ideas; it was all about the gazing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
What was uncomfortable for you about making eye contact, Share? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Silently making eye contact and I do remember the word shakitpat being used a few times. In the beginning only teachers and mentors gazed with others. Now everyone gazes with everyone. Since I didn't like it, I'm probably not the best to describe its benefits. How is shaktipat given in your tradition? guy at the gas station=Buddha At the Gas Pump? Impressed? Most recently I have been impressed by Dr. Nader because he seems brilliant AND compassionate AND down to earth. He is leading a very human life with a wife and children and a medical practice. From: Bhairitu noozguru@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:38 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits  What is the gazing? I've been taught to give shaktipat by my tantra guru but it doesn't involve any gazing. Sometimes I wonder if these people had any authentic teacher or just some charlatan from India. There are probably more than a few Indians in the US who have learned tantra and some are astrologers and others are quiet maybe helping someone if they ask. And then there is the guy at the gas station who decided to call himself a Swami for some extra money. It's a good thing to spend a few months testing a teacher and boning up on the field through books such as Dr. Robert Svoboda's excellent trilogy (on what it is like to be a westerner learning from an authentic tantric). I would also be interested in what kind of things impress people? On 10/16/2012 10:55 AM, Share Long wrote: laughing because different strokes, etc. I rarely liked the gazing. OTOH, I wasn't comfortable attending and NOT participating in gazing. And they don't like people coming late to avoid the gazing... WDM gave me a steady spiritual family when I first left campus. I'll always be grateful for that. Even so, I was never looking for another theory of consciounsess, etc. so I didn't mind their lack of that. And I do think the whole mutuality angle is an important one that very few others discuss. Didn't go last night but am busting with curiosity about it (-: From: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 12:49 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: And it cost $20 too. I see Bonder as a guy with a few ideas, which may or may not be helpful to some people. Waking Down is a small, niche path that is certainly not for everyone. I have heard him twice, and can't say I have been overwhelmingly impressed. I wasn't at all impressed the first time I went to see him and Linda at the FF library, about 10 years ago. But, on his next trip to FF, he was here with Pascal Salesses, a WD teacher who had just moved to FF, and I felt a connection with her. I'm grateful that Saniel started WD, but I've always connected better with some of the other teachers. And, I can't even begin to get through his books. For me, the WD experience had nothing to do with ideas; it was all about the gazing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: What was uncomfortable for you about making eye contact, Share? When I was in India with the Vedic Atom, there was a troop of baboons that roamed freely at the walled boundary of a large park. After lunch we often walked to the park from the nearby Indian Express Building where we met for rounding and Maharishi's lectures. One day I made the mistake of making eye contact with a large male baboon. He charged at me. I turned tail and ran like hell. Eye contact is an intimacy that could feel like a threatening invasion of personal space for people as well as baboons. Prolonged eye contact is usually reserved for a lover for the purpose of bonding and intimacy. Intense, prolonged eye contact with people you may not know very well in a workshop seems like an artificial intimacy that could be uncomfortable for some folks. Apparently, it challenges a person's tolerance for intimacy, but then, that's probably the purpose of the gazing exercise. As long as it's not with a baboon, gazing would be just fine by me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Silently making eye contact and I do remember the word shakitpat being used a few times. In the beginning only teachers and mentors gazed with others. Now everyone gazes with everyone. Since I didn't like it, I'm probably not the best to describe its benefits. How is shaktipat given in your tradition? guy at the gas station=Buddha At the Gas Pump? Impressed? Most recently I have been impressed by Dr. Nader because he seems brilliant AND compassionate AND down to earth. He is leading a very human life with a wife and children and a medical practice. From: Bhairitu noozguru@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:38 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits  What is the gazing? I've been taught to give shaktipat by my tantra guru but it doesn't involve any gazing. Sometimes I wonder if these people had any authentic teacher or just some charlatan from India. There are probably more than a few Indians in the US who have learned tantra and some are astrologers and others are quiet maybe helping someone if they ask. And then there is the guy at the gas station who decided to call himself a Swami for some extra money. It's a good thing to spend a few months testing a teacher and boning up on the field through books such as Dr. Robert Svoboda's excellent trilogy (on what it is like to be a westerner learning from an authentic tantric). I would also be interested in what kind of things impress people? On 10/16/2012 10:55 AM, Share Long wrote: laughing because different strokes, etc. I rarely liked the gazing. OTOH, I wasn't comfortable attending and NOT participating in gazing. And they don't like people coming late to avoid the gazing... WDM gave me a steady spiritual family when I first left campus. I'll always be grateful for that. Even so, I was never looking for another theory of consciounsess, etc. so I didn't mind their lack of that. And I do think the whole mutuality angle is an important one that very few others discuss. Didn't go last night but am busting with curiosity about it (-: From: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 12:49 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: And it cost $20 too. I see Bonder as a guy with a few ideas, which may or may not be helpful to some people. Waking Down is a small, niche path that is certainly not for everyone. I have heard him twice, and can't say I have been overwhelmingly impressed. I wasn't at all impressed the first time I went to see him and Linda at the FF library, about 10 years ago. But, on his next trip to FF, he was here with Pascal Salesses, a WD teacher who had just moved to FF, and I felt a connection with her. I'm grateful that Saniel started WD, but I've always connected better with some of the other teachers. And, I can't even begin to get through his books. For me, the WD experience had nothing to do with ideas; it was all about the gazing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: What was uncomfortable for you about making eye contact, Share? When I was in India with the Vedic Atom, there was a troop of baboons that roamed freely at the walled boundary of a large park. After lunch we often walked to the park from the nearby Indian Express Building where we met for rounding and Maharishi's lectures. One day I made the mistake of making eye contact with a large male baboon. He charged at me. I turned tail and ran like hell. Eye contact is an intimacy that could feel like a threatening invasion of personal space for people as well as baboons. Prolonged eye contact is usually reserved for a lover for the purpose of bonding and intimacy. Intense, prolonged eye contact with people you may not know very well in a workshop seems like an artificial intimacy that could be uncomfortable for some folks. Apparently, it challenges a person's tolerance for intimacy, but then, that's probably the purpose of the gazing exercise. As long as it's not with a baboon, gazing would be just fine by me. I've never done this, but as I try to imagine it, it doesn't seem as if it would be uncomfortable. Maybe it would in reality. If it *isn't* uncomfortable--if it's not challenging for a person--I wonder what they would gain from it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Silently making eye contact and I do remember the word shakitpat being used a few times. In the beginning only teachers and mentors gazed with others. Now everyone gazes with everyone. Since I didn't like it, I'm probably not the best to describe its benefits. How is shaktipat given in your tradition? guy at the gas station=Buddha At the Gas Pump? Impressed? Most recently I have been impressed by Dr. Nader because he seems brilliant AND compassionate AND down to earth. He is leading a very human life with a wife and children and a medical practice. From: Bhairitu noozguru@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:38 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits  What is the gazing? I've been taught to give shaktipat by my tantra guru but it doesn't involve any gazing. Sometimes I wonder if these people had any authentic teacher or just some charlatan from India. There are probably more than a few Indians in the US who have learned tantra and some are astrologers and others are quiet maybe helping someone if they ask. And then there is the guy at the gas station who decided to call himself a Swami for some extra money. It's a good thing to spend a few months testing a teacher and boning up on the field through books such as Dr. Robert Svoboda's excellent trilogy (on what it is like to be a westerner learning from an authentic tantric). I would also be interested in what kind of things impress people? On 10/16/2012 10:55 AM, Share Long wrote: laughing because different strokes, etc. I rarely liked the gazing. OTOH, I wasn't comfortable attending and NOT participating in gazing. And they don't like people coming late to avoid the gazing... WDM gave me a steady spiritual family when I first left campus. I'll always be grateful for that. Even so, I was never looking for another theory of consciounsess, etc. so I didn't mind their lack of that. And I do think the whole mutuality angle is an important one that very few others discuss. Didn't go last night but am busting with curiosity about it (-: From: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 12:49 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: And it cost $20 too. I see Bonder as a guy with a few ideas, which may or may not be helpful to some people. Waking Down is a small, niche path that is certainly not for everyone. I have heard him twice, and can't say I have been overwhelmingly impressed. I wasn't at all impressed the first time I went to see him and Linda at the FF library, about 10 years ago. But, on his next trip to FF, he was here with Pascal Salesses, a WD teacher who had just moved to FF, and I felt a connection with her. I'm grateful that Saniel started WD, but I've always connected better with some of the other teachers. And, I can't even begin to get through his books. For me, the WD experience had nothing to do with ideas; it was all about the gazing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: What was uncomfortable for you about making eye contact, Share? When I was in India with the Vedic Atom, there was a troop of baboons that roamed freely at the walled boundary of a large park. After lunch we often walked to the park from the nearby Indian Express Building where we met for rounding and Maharishi's lectures. One day I made the mistake of making eye contact with a large male baboon. He charged at me. I turned tail and ran like hell. Eye contact is an intimacy that could feel like a threatening invasion of personal space for people as well as baboons. Prolonged eye contact is usually reserved for a lover for the purpose of bonding and intimacy. Intense, prolonged eye contact with people you may not know very well in a workshop seems like an artificial intimacy that could be uncomfortable for some folks. Apparently, it challenges a person's tolerance for intimacy, but then, that's probably the purpose of the gazing exercise. As long as it's not with a baboon, gazing would be just fine by me. I've never done this, but as I try to imagine it, it doesn't seem as if it would be uncomfortable. Maybe it would in reality. If it *isn't* uncomfortable--if it's not challenging for a person--I wonder what they would gain from it. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/55423 There are some traditions that explain this phenomenon in terms of recognition. You sit in the presence of someone who is firing on more cylinders than you are. They are higher, or in a more advanced state of con- sciousness. More aspects of their being have woken up. And in that person's presence, you find that similar aspects of YOUR being wake up. In WD, gazing isn't about being a challenge. It's spoken of in terms of transmission, but IMO, it's exactly what Barry refers to in that post. It's an opportunity bring yourself into spiritual alignment with the teacher by simply being present with each other in a very powerful way.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: What was uncomfortable for you about making eye contact, Share? When I was in India with the Vedic Atom, there was a troop of baboons that roamed freely at the walled boundary of a large park. After lunch we often walked to the park from the nearby Indian Express Building where we met for rounding and Maharishi's lectures. One day I made the mistake of making eye contact with a large male baboon. He charged at me. I turned tail and ran like hell. Eye contact is an intimacy that could feel like a threatening invasion of personal space for people as well as baboons. Prolonged eye contact is usually reserved for a lover for the purpose of bonding and intimacy. Intense, prolonged eye contact with people you may not know very well in a workshop seems like an artificial intimacy that could be uncomfortable for some folks. Apparently, it challenges a person's tolerance for intimacy, but then, that's probably the purpose of the gazing exercise. As long as it's not with a baboon, gazing would be just fine by me. I've never done this, but as I try to imagine it, it doesn't seem as if it would be uncomfortable. Maybe it would in reality. If it *isn't* uncomfortable--if it's not challenging for a person--I wonder what they would gain from it. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/55423 There are some traditions that explain this phenomenon in terms of recognition. You sit in the presence of someone who is firing on more cylinders than you are. They are higher, or in a more advanced state of con- sciousness. More aspects of their being have woken up. And in that person's presence, you find that similar aspects of YOUR being wake up. In WD, gazing isn't about being a challenge. It's spoken of in terms of transmission, but IMO, it's exactly what Barry refers to in that post. It's an opportunity bring yourself into spiritual alignment with the teacher by simply being present with each other in a very powerful way. Thanks for the explanation, Alex. I was just guessing what WD gazing is all about based on my experience with people and a baboon...so what do I know?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: What was uncomfortable for you about making eye contact, Share? When I was in India with the Vedic Atom, there was a troop of baboons that roamed freely at the walled boundary of a large park. After lunch we often walked to the park from the nearby Indian Express Building where we met for rounding and Maharishi's lectures. One day I made the mistake of making eye contact with a large male baboon. He charged at me. I turned tail and ran like hell. Eye contact is an intimacy that could feel like a threatening invasion of personal space for people as well as baboons. Prolonged eye contact is usually reserved for a lover for the purpose of bonding and intimacy. Intense, prolonged eye contact with people you may not know very well in a workshop seems like an artificial intimacy that could be uncomfortable for some folks. Apparently, it challenges a person's tolerance for intimacy, but then, that's probably the purpose of the gazing exercise. As long as it's not with a baboon, gazing would be just fine by me. I've never done this, but as I try to imagine it, it doesn't seem as if it would be uncomfortable. Maybe it would in reality. If it *isn't* uncomfortable--if it's not challenging for a person--I wonder what they would gain from it. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/55423 There are some traditions that explain this phenomenon in terms of recognition. You sit in the presence of someone who is firing on more cylinders than you are. They are higher, or in a more advanced state of con- sciousness. More aspects of their being have woken up. And in that person's presence, you find that similar aspects of YOUR being wake up. In WD, gazing isn't about being a challenge. It's spoken of in terms of transmission, but IMO, it's exactly what Barry refers to in that post. It's an opportunity bring yourself into spiritual alignment with the teacher by simply being present with each other in a very powerful way. Thanks for the explanation, Alex. I was just guessing what WD gazing is all about based on my experience with people and a baboon...so what do I know? FWIW, Share says everybody does it with everybody now; it's not just teacher-and-student.
